The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is today.

– Chinese Proverb

By Bhavani Prakash

What is this life if full of care, we have no time to plant a single tree?

And what better way to express our gratitude to Mother Nature, compensate for our heavy footprint, and restore the land for generations to come, than to plant a tree? He who plants a tree, as Lucy Larcom the 19th century poet said, plants hope. He plants a joy, he plants peace, he plants youth, and he plants love.

Today, 5th June 2012 is World Environment Day and we take this opportunity to pledge our support to Project Green Hands, an inspiring grassroots initiative of the not-for-profit organisation, Isha Foundation. Its ambitious mission is to restore the green cover in Tamil Nadu, India to 33% by planting 114 million trees.

The programme was lauched in 2004 on World Environment Day, and has enabled the planting till date of more than 14 million saplings in Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry, with the help of more than 1.5 million volunteers.

In 2010, Project Green Hands (PGH) won a national award in India, the Indira Gandhi Paryavaran Puraskar award in recognition of its efforts to create environmental awareness and reverse ecological degradation. PGH also has a Guinness World Record of planting most number of saplings in three days: 8,52,587.

Listen to Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev, Founder of Isha Foundation, share his thoughts about Project Green Hands and the urgent need to reforest the earth.

Video link here

A single sapling costs only Indian Rupees 50 (less than 1 USD and just over 1 Singapore dollar). Every little counts by way of your contribution. 

By donating just Indian Rupees 50 per sapling through giveisha.org/pgh Project Green Hands (PGH) will plant trees on your behalf in Tamil Nadu, India.  The saplings will be provided to farmers for planting in their farmlands. PGH tracks the exact location of their trees and the details of the farmer who will plant and take care of it.

Project Green Hands hopes to plant 300,000 trees for World Environment Day 2012. The World Environment Day campaign will run for June and part of July 2012. PGH continues beyond that period to achieve its larger objective of planting 6 million saplings in 2012.

Your help to spread the word, and contribution, however small, really matters in achieving these goals to reforest Tamil Nadu. 

FAQs (as provided by Project Green Hands of Isha Foundation)

1. What is Give Isha?

GIVE ISHA is an online fundraising portal through which people can support for Isha Foundation’s social initiatives in Education – Isha Vidya, Health – Action for Rural Rejuvenation and Environment – Project GreenHands.

The featured project currently on Give Isha is:

World Environment Day campaign – Project GreenHands

2. Who plants the trees and where are they planted?

PGH is providing trees to farmers for planting in their farmlands. PGH has been working with farmers in Pudukottai, Erode, Tirunelveli districts of Tamil Nadu.

3. How can trees be tracked?

While taking saplings from PGH, the farmer has to register his name, contact details and location. This is stored in the PGH database. After the plantation is done, a survey will be carried out by PGH to confirm whether the saplings have been planted. So when an individual donates for a tree, he will be assigned a tree from the PGH database.

4. Will we get anything if we donate?

Once you make a donation, you will get an email with tree certificate indicating the total number of trees planted by you.

5. How can we donate?

You can donate online: log on to giveisha.org/pgh and offline: or send an Indian Rupee DD/ Cheque drawn in the favour of “ Isha Outreach” to Project GreenHands ,  Isha Yoga Center,  Velliangiri Foothills,  Semmedu post,  Coimbatore – 641114.

6. How much is the minimum donation?

One Sapling: Indian Rupees 50/- (about 1 Dollar)

 7. After I donate, what is the next step? How do I know what is happening and when the sapling planted?

Once you make a donation, you will get an email with tree certificate indicating the total number of trees planted by you. A tree tracking code will be specified on the certificate. Using this code you can track your tree starting Jan 1st 2013, on projectgreenhands.org/track

8. Why this time gap – why can’t I track the tree immediately?

The planting season begins in the month of September and trees can be planted till December. After the plantation is done, a survey will be carried out by PGH to confirm where the saplings have been planted. After which each donor will be assigned a tree from PGH’s database.

9. If I donate at separate occasions, will I get different certificates? Can I have it in the name of someone other than me?

Yes, you will get a different tree certificate each time you make a donation. If you want the certificate in someone else’s name, please fill in their particulars in the Donor details.

10. Are there any centers/stalls where something is set up for this campaign? If so, where?

No, the donation can be done only Online or a DD/ Cheque needs to be sent to PGH directly.

11. As someone who has donated and is interested in this campaign, how can I help? What can I do?

1. Many people may get inspired just by seeing your enthusiasm for the project. Spreading the word is the most important help you can do to us. You can take the message to all your friends and relatives by send them emails and videos, sharing on facebook, twitter and other social media.
2. Create your own campaign page on the Give Isha site and get all your colleagues and friends to join you.
3. You could also like the PGH Facebook page

About the Writer:

Bhavani Prakash is the Founder of Eco WALK the Talk .com.  She is a sustainability speaker, trainer and writer can be contacted at bhavani[at]ecowalkthetalk.com. Follow Eco WALK the Talk on Facebook, Twitter, Linked IN and YouTube

Share/Save

Michelle Desilets

Michelle Desilets is Founder and Executive Director of Orangutan Land Trust, a UK-based NGO which supports sustainable solutions for the long-term survival of the orangutan in the wild.  She is also Founder of Borneo Orangutan Survival Foundation UK, and Member of the Board of Borneo Orangutan Survival Germany, which supports the largest primate rescue and protection project in the world.

She was in Singapore recently when she talked to us about the threats to orangutans, especially from the palm oil industry. Orangutan Land Trust is a key player in the campaign for sustainable palm oil, and Desilets shares some of the nuances in the debate about sustainable palm oil, the challenges in the Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) process, and what would be more effective to save the rainforests – boycotting palm oil, or more direct action through petitions which influence industry and government behaviour.

Watch the interview with Michelle Desilets here:

Video link here

Desilets aim to secure at least 1 million hectares of rainforest for the continued and long term survival of the orangutan. Support Orangutan Land Trust’s efforts here

Please support the campaign to save Tripa Peat Swamps.

Join the Facebook page : Save the Tripa Peat Swamps, and sign petitions via Avaaz, Change.org or Care2

ABOUT THE INTERVIEWER:

Bhavani Prakash is the Founder of Eco WALK the Talk .com.  She is a sustainability speaker, trainer and writer can be contacted at bhavani[at]ecowalkthetalk.com. Follow Eco WALK the Talk on Facebook, Twitter, Linked IN and YouTube

Further links you may be interested in:

EWTT: The fight for Borneo’s soul

EWTT: Nestle buckles to Greenpeace pressure on unsustainable palm oil

EWTT: How to find Hidden Palm Oil in Supermarkets

EWTT: Engaging local communities in S.E.Asian Peat Swamp Regeneratio

Share/Save

Aedes aegypti

By Bhavani Prakash

In Dec 2010, 6000 genetically modified (GM) Aedes aegypti sterile male mosquitoes were released in the unhabited forests of Betong, Malaysia, according to the statement by the government run Institute of Medical Research (IMR).  

The GM mosquitoes were developed by the UK biotech company, Oxitec. The purported aim of the company is to work with governments around the world to combat dengue disease caused by the Aedes mosquito. It had already “released 3 million GM male mosquitoes as part of an open release field experiment in the Caymen Islands in 2010,” according to the press release by UK’s Gene Watch entitled, “Oxitec’s genetically-modified mosquitoes: in the public interest?”

The mosquitoes released in Malaysia were genetically engineered in such a way that when they mate with females in the wild, the resulting mosquito larvae die young (although this will only happen in the absence of the antibiotic tetracycline).  Oxitec claims that this will drastically reduce the population of disease causing mosquitoes. However not everybody is of the same view with many scientists arguing that this practice is fundamentally flawed.

Prior to the experiment, Malaysia’s Third World Network (TWN) had already raised concerns and submitted their objections about genetically modified or engineered (GE) mosquitoes. They sought answers to the following concerns:

 1) Could female mosquitoes be accidentally released?

TWN’s concern was about the possibility of an accidental release of female GE mosquitoes that could in turn raise further concerns, as females act as vectors for diseases such as dengue and chikungunya. Their argument was that the sex selection process prior to release may not be fully accurate or effective. They claimed that the available information does not indicate whether the reliability and efficiency of the sex selection process can be guaranteed.

 2) Could GE mosquitoes and GE larvae survive and persist in the environment?

Oxitec mentions that mosquito larvae that are produced after the GE males mate with females will only die if they do not encounter tetracycline in the environment. TWN’s concern is that since Tetracycline is a fairly common antibiotic used in animal husbandry, there is a possibility of the larvae surviving. TWN claims that the available information provided does not indicate whether the use, presence and persistence of tetracycline in the environment at the proposed release sites have been assessed.

In addition, TWN is also concerned that about the possibility that the conditional lethality trait may not be 100 percent effective, meaning some of the GE larvae produced will not die.

All this implies that it is reasonable to expect at least some GE mosquitoes to persist beyond the first generation in the environment. While the number may be small, a proportion of these would be female, and thus capable of transmitting disease. TWN is concerned that there is a risk of an increase in the disease burden of the communities at the inhabited release sites.

3) Could there be a surge of other disease-transmitting mosquito species if Aedes aegypti populations are suppressed?

Aedes aegypti is not native to Malaysia, but is an introduced, invasive species. Nonetheless, it has become part of Malaysia’s complex ecological ecosystem. It would be important to consider the implications on other species that interact with Aedes aegypti in the receiving environment.

Aedes albopictus is an indigenous species of mosquito to Malaysia, which also transmits dengue, as well as chikungunya. If the GE Aedes aegypti mosquitoes successfully achieve their aim of suppressing wild populations, there could be a surge in Aedes albopictus, with potential increase in incidences of chikungunya and possibly also dengue.

There may also be other ecological implications of long-term suppression of Aedes aegypti populations. This could include effects on food webs and ecological functioning or impacts on the abundance of other species that feed on mosquitoes. The available information provided does not indicate whether there are baseline ecological data on mosquito and other ecology in the proposed release sites that could inform the assessment.

 4) Could there be gene flow and effects on non-target organisms?

 While the available information suggests that gene flow through mating of closely related species (Aedes albopictus) will not produce fertile offspring, the possibility of gene flow between different Aedes aegypti populations and perhaps other mosquito species cannot be absolutely discounted.

This possibility may vary depending on the genetic elements used in the specific modification, which may to a greater or lesser extent be genetically unstable, especially under field conditions. If horizontal gene flow happens, non-target species may be adversely affected by sterility-inducing genetic elements, increasing the risk of ecological harm.

5) Are the monitoring and control measures proposed adequate?

While the applicant has proposed control measures to prevent the GE mosquitoes from persisting in the environment, the monitoring of these mosquitoes is dependent on the adequate functioning of the fluorescence marker gene. Because genetic expression can vary, the production of the fluorescent marker may be diminished and some GE mosquitoes may not be identifiable by fluorescence. If this happens, the GE mosquitoes may persist in the environment without our knowledge.

Furthermore, given the possibility that some GE mosquitoes could persist beyond the first generation in the environment (see point 2), the proposed period of one month for application of the control measures may not be long enough.

Therefore, an assessment must also be made as to whether the monitoring plan as proposed by the applicant is adequate and whether complete removal of GE mosquitoes and larvae from the field release sites is possible.

 6) Has the prior informed consent of local communities at the release sites been obtained?

As the experiments are also proposed for inhabited sites, local communities living in these areas have the right to be specifically informed, consulted and their consent obtained before any field release occurs. This is especially given the possibility of the risks as highlighted, particularly in relation to disease transmission.

 7) Is there sufficient risk assessment and regulatory experience?

The only reported environmental release of GE insects to date has been in the United States, of a transgenic pink bollworm, an agricultural pest that is not involved in intimate contact with humans or disease transmission as Aedes aegypti is. There may have already been field experiments with GE mosquitoes, but little information is available; however, this proposed release would be certainly be one of the first such releases in the world.

The experiment drew flak from several organizations in Malaysia. Following the news of the release of the GM mosquitoes in Malaysia in December 2010, a coalition comprising of 21 NGOs demanded that the government disclose full details of the trial release and its results and to identify the existence of any adverse effects. They also “criticized the government for “silently” conducting the experiment despite making a public announcement that the trial had been postponed pending public consultation.”

Following the experiment, the MP of Sungai Siput, Dr D Jeyakumar, who is also a respiratory physician called the using of laboratory mosquitoes to fight dengue “a catastrophic mistake” in this article by Free Malaysia Today.  Some of the points he raised were:

• the release of large numbers of genetically modified (GM) mosquitoes into the environment could cause the transformation of the mosquitoes  or even some other insects in some unanticipated manner that might be difficult to control.
• the process of producing the male GM mosquitoes was not foolproof and that  3% to 4% of them would be female which could copy the role of the wild female Aedes to spread dengue. (This is also raised in Consumer Association of Penang’s Memorandum dated Dec 20, 2010 titled, ” Malaysia’s Planned Release of Aedes Mosquito: ethical, legal and human rights concern)
• the means of biological suppression cannot completely eliminate the species from the environment and the government would have to go on purchasing, releasing and killing the GM mosquitoes. “We would need billions of these transgenic mosquitoes for an average sized city. Wouldn’t it be more logical and productive if that same sum were spent in improving the drains and sewerage systems in our urban areas?”

On January 12 2012 , civil society groups  Friends of the Earth U.S., GeneWatch UK and Third World Network in a joint press release titled, “Genetically modified mosquitoes survival rate concealed,”  revealed a confidential internal document by Oxitec that showed that genetically modified mosquitoes described by the company “as “sterile” are in fact not sterile and their offspring have a 15 percent survival rate in the presence of the common antibiotic tetracycline.

The antibiotic tetracycline is widely used in agriculture and is present in sewage as well as in industrially farmed meat. Mosquitoes that carry dengue fever are known to breed in environments contaminated with sewage where they are likely to encounter widespread tetracycline contamination.

Even in the absence of tetracycline contamination, the GM mosquitoes are known to survive in the laboratory at rates of around 3 percent. In the field, this would translate into large numbers of survivors, given that continual releases of millions of GM mosquitoes would be needed to sustain the goals of population suppression.”

In January 2012, the US delayed the release of genetically engineered mosquitoes, according to FOE’s press release. Eric Hoffman, FOE’s biotechnology policy campaigner said:

“This delay is welcome and prudent given the risks that genetically engineered mosquitoes pose. Introducing genetically engineered mosquitoes into the environment could destabilize ecosystems, harm human health and scare away tourists, endangering the Florida Keys economy. These potential impacts must be evaluated through a serious and thorough environmental impacts review process. We are confident that any truly impartial, science-based review will lead to the cancellation of this risky experiment.”

It is to be expected that Oxitec will endeavour to rope in more nations into this experiment with GM mosquitoes. The issue is of particular concern to the public in neighbouring countries such as Singapore, and the rest of tropical Asia where there is a prevalence of dengue. Many questions are raised from the way the experiment was conducted in Malaysia and Cayman Islands. Has the public been involved and sufficiently consulted in the process? Aren’t there other non-invasive ways to attack the dengue issue, rather than doing an irreversible experiment with nature, especially when there are several unanswered concerns?

*****************************************************************************************

About the Writer:

Bhavani Prakash is the Founder of Eco WALK the Talk .com.  She is a sustainability speaker, trainer and writer can be contacted at bhavani[at]ecowalkthetalk.com. Follow Eco WALK the Talk on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube

*****************************************************************************************

Further links you may be interested in: 

Friends of the Earth U.S., GeneWatch UK and Third World Network’s Joint Press Release: “Genetically modified mosquitoes survival rate concealed,

Consumer Association of Penang’s Memorandum dated Dec 20, 2010 titled, “ Malaysia’s Planned Release of Aedes Mosquito: ethical, legal and human rights concern

UK’s Gene Watch :”Oxitec’s genetically-modified mosquitoes: in the public interest?”

Free Malaysia Today: GM mosquitoes Horror story in the making?

On GM Food: 

EWTT:  China suspends commercialisation of genetically engineered rice and wheat

EWTT:  Better labelling of GM Food in Singapore essential

EWTT: Lim Li Ching: GMO Free

EWTT:  India’s GM Bill: Anti-people, Anti-nature

EWTT: Go GM Free in Australia

EWTT: Dr Vandana Shiva: Traditional Knowledge, Biodiversity and Sustainable Development

EWTT: Dr Mira Shiva: Health Effects of GM Food

Share/Save

With palm oil companies slashing vast swathes of forest, the Dayaks of West Kalimantan are desperately struggling to save their ancestral lands and way of life

Houses and Mountains. Photo courtesy: Ben Sutherland

On the porch of a wooden house deep in West Kalimantan, a shirtless man sits, staring out at endless rows of palm oil trees surrounding his home like a besieging army. Pak Kabul does not know his exact age, only that he was born in the 1950s. Neither does he know what the future holds – except that life took a turn for the worse when a palm oil company took over the bulk of land nearby. The company chased nearly everyone off their land; only he refused to budge, he said. These days, he and his wife, together with some chickens and pigs, live a lonely existence in the middle of a sprawling plantation about an hour by road from the nearest town, Sintang, 420 km west of Pontianak city.

They eke out a living tapping rubber, earning about 360,000 rupiah (S$51) each month. Their son teaches at a nearby village and visits sometimes. Javanese immigrants brought in to work on the plantation live nearby, but Pak Kabul does not interact with them.

Borneo rain forest. Photo courtesy: Ben Sutherland

He remembers better times when the land was still forested and the villagers could live off its bounty. “When we had the forest, nobody came to hurt us,” he said with quiet resignation. “I have no more hope; I can only hope my son will be good.” According to him, the only benefit reaped from the palm oil company is the road built through the estate.

It was this road on which we were travelling, en route to a village three hours from Sintang, that we spotted Pak Kabul and decided on impulse to stop and talk to him – and heard yet another account of the Dayak indigenous people’s struggle with palm oil companies.

Our group comprised more than 20 people from countries like Australia, the Netherlands, the United States and Indonesia. Led by Dutch-born Indonesian conservationist Willie Smits, 15 young people dubbed the EcoWarriors – of whom I was one – were in West Kalimantan for a project to combat deforestation and illegal wildlife trade in partnership with local communities. Our efforts are to be made into a documentary by Australian director Cathy Henkel.

We were in West Kalimantan for 20 days in September, the first leg of a 100-day project. Accompanied by some Dayaks who have banded together to raise awareness of unlawful land grabs, we visited remote villages in the Serawai and Ambalau – the only two of Sintang’s 14 sub-districts that have resisted the palm oil companies. 

But for how much longer? Already, the locals speak of their livelihoods and communities being threatened by the relentless expansion plans of these companies.

The Dayaks love a good celebration, and we were welcomed warmly with traditional dances, rituals and generous amounts of a rice wine called tuak. Behind the smiles, however, lay deep anxiety for their future. The issue is not simply about the local communities depending on ancestral lands and forests to live, but about deforestation and wildlife habitat destruction – a struggle for Borneo’s soul.

‘TO THE LAST DROP OF BLOOD’

The third-largest island in the world, made up of Malaysia’s Sabah and Sarawak states, Brunei and Indonesia’s Kalimantan region, Borneo is known for its lush rainforests and stunning biodiversity. But since the 1980s and 1990s, large tracts of forests have been cleared for pulp and timber.

Deforestation in Borneo Image Courtesy: Maps.grida.no

In the past 15 years or so, palm oil companies have moved in; according to a 2009 report commissioned by Amsterdam University’s law faculty, the plantations occupied 3.2 million hectares of land in 2006, with another 2.8 million hectares cleared.

A July report by independent monitors Forest Watch Indonesia estimated that between 2000 and 2009, 1.5 million hectares of forest – an area 21 times the size of Singapore – were destroyed each year, a third of it in Kalimantan.

The villages we visited faced the very real danger of losing land that has been passed down for generations. Nearly every adult villager had a tale to tell – of suspicious tactics by palm oil company staff to survey the land, the bribery of select villagers to create rifts within the community, or the abuse of villagers who vocally opposed the companies. In Duan village in Ambalau, a sacred burial ground is part of the land being eyed by a palm oil company. Duan practises shifting agriculture, moving to a different spot every eight years to allow land to lie fallow. This allows the companies a chance to pounce on seemingly unoccupied territory.

When we visited, the traditional village high priest opened the vault where the bones are kept for us – a rare privilege and sign of trust that our group will tell their story of struggle and desperation when we return to our home countries. He grew increasingly distressed as he told us of seven generations of high priests who have watched over the grounds.

Should the palm oil companies try to take the land, it would be a “fight to the last drop of blood”, he said.

The locals also told of a villager, Joseph Obeng, who was framed by the palm oil company into accepting timber, then reported to the police for unlawful possession of it and thrown into jail.

TAKING BACK THEIR LAND

Over 300km from Duan, the three villages of Lansat Baru, Lansat Lama and Belenyut Sibau have found 80 hectares of their land bulldozed by a palm oil company. The company had also planted saplings on the land and driven their truck in – all without having obtained the necessary permits or completing negotiations with the community, villagers claimed.

Enraged, they confiscated the keys of the truck in September. Hearing of the Eco Warriors’ presence in a longhouse three hours away, the villagers travelled the bumpy, muddy roads to tell us of their plight.

The next morning, some of us drove to the disputed site. We spoke to the village leaders, and watched as they performed a traditional Dayak ceremony to stake their claim on the land, and uprooted several saplings. “Nobody has agreed to this and the palm oil company just steals and rapes our land,” said a leader, Mr Yohanes Aliam.

The palm oil company retaliated – it made a police report and the following morning, another leader in the group, Mr Yunosno, was arrested and taken to the police station. Several of the Serawai-Ambalau action group bailed him out after nearly a day.

Mr Yunosno maintained that the villages had not been properly compensated for their land. But in a report by the news site Kalimantan-News.com, a company representative was quoted as saying the company had followed proper procedure.

THE WEIGHTED DICE

The villages’ struggle to hold on to their land comes about because of lax enforcement and corruption, and overlapping laws and claims for the land. Palm oil companies are supposed to go through a multi-step licensing process – securing location permits, plantation business permits, forest area release and, finally, business use permits – before clearing the land. 

But this is seldom the case, going by what we observed as well as findings of the Amsterdam University report.

According to the Dayaks and Dr Smits, even if the palm oil companies present required legal documents such as environmental impact assessments of the land (known as Amdal), or papers that show the majority of villagers are pro-palm oil, their authenticity could be questionable.

A 2009 investigative report done by several non-governmental organisations found that despite “constitutional and human rights provisions which recognise customary rights in land, most local communities and indigenous peoples in Indonesia lack secure land titles”. Community representatives surveyed in the report were also under the impression that they were temporarily relinquishing their land to the companies – suggesting “community leaders had not received adequate information about the law prior to entering negotiations”.

The report also said that locals who sign away their land do so in hopes of receiving jobs and income. But according to Dr Smits, this is not the case. The locals end up being deeply indebted to the palm oil companies. They are paid about 600,000 rupiah for one hectare of land, and have to borrow the equivalent of thousand of dollars to buy seedlings and fertilisers from the company.

As palm oil trees take seven years to mature, a downward spiral of debt results, eventually leading the locals to lose even the 20 per cent of land allocated to them in a typical agreement with palm oil companies.

GLIMMER OF HOPE?

Having heard so many accounts of injustice and desperation, we searched for a glimmer of hope during our 20 days in Borneo – and found one in the village of Tembak, just after our encounter with Pak Kabul.

The village faced off with a major timber company in 1996 and won; its reply to palm oil is also an emphatic “no”. As a result, roads to Tembak are undeveloped, almost impassable after heavy rains. But the 650 villagers remain united and fiercely protective of their forests, and have developed a system of turbines to generate electricity from a nearby river. They have offered us land for release of any orangutans we rescue and rehabilitate.

If other villages, through dogged struggle and maybe some help from the rest of the world, see an outcome similar to Tembak’s, the future of their children would look brighter. Such victories would also be salve for Borneo’s soul.

To find out more about the Eco Warriors’ project, visit their website here.

*********************************************************************************

Neo Chai Chin is a journalist with Today Online where this article appeared originally. It has been reproduced with permission. 

*********************************************************************************

DeforestACTION Live Event – March 28!

On March 28^th 2012, join Dr. Willie Smits for an exciting online collaborative learning event! Be prepared to be taken deep into the heart the Borneo jungle to connect with orang-utans. Hear from Dr. Willie Smits and the Eco Warriors about the work they are doing with the Masarang Foundation, and speak with other schools around the world taking action to stop deforestation. Register for the event here.

Share/Save

Here is the trailer to the Tribunal:

Video link here

Share/Save

Prof. Philip H. Howard, Assistant Professor at Michigan State University has created an interesting infograph on the Structure of the Seed Industry from 1996 to 2008.  Not surprisingly, it shows an oligopolistic industry with a small number of large players such as Monsanto, Dupont, Syngenta, Limagrain-Vilmorin, Land-O’Lakes, KWS and Bayer.

As an example, the top three seed firms control 85% of the transgenic corn patents, and 70% of the non-corn transgenic patents in the US.

See the enlarged version as a pdf here or here below on Zoom.it

In his research article titled, “Visualising Consolidation in the Global Seed Industry: 1996-2008  he outlines how the commercial seed industry has consolidated in the last four decades – from what used to be small, family owned firms to mega transnational chemical or pharmaceutical corporations following waves of mergers and acquistions.

Not only is the trend accelerating, the largest firms are also strengthening the network by cross-licensing transgenic seed traits through various agreements.

Prof.  Howard, who teaches at the University’s Department of Community, Agriculture, Recreation and Resource Studies, shares 3 broad perspectives that have emerged from this disturbing trend.

1. Removal of barriers to accumulation of capital

Agriculture was traditionally a risky place to seek massive profit because of requirements of land, natural cycles and forces. With the advent of large agribusinesses, money can easily be converted to commodities, just as in a factory (although most of the costs are borne by someone else – such as the environment or people who are exposed to chemicals).

Traditionally seeds have been the biggest barrier to this profit oriented model of capital accumulation, because farmers did not have to buy these inputs year after year.  With hybrid varieties, and now genetically modified ones, there is a strong dependence created on seed companies which at once profit from seeds, and continuing purchases of inputs such as pesticides and fertilisers, and equipment.

2. Agricultural Treadmills

The farmer is constantly running on a treadmill. With increasing costs of inputs, he tries to produce more and more to get the same level of income. But if all farmers produce more, prices come down, and the individual farmer is faced with declining revenues. Some quit the farming profession altogether, which is good for those who want to take over and consolidate smaller farms to bigger ones. Farmers also become heavily dependent on costly inputs rather than being self-sufficient through seed saving, and this is leading to a loss in valuable cultural knowledge.

Photo Courtesy: Prof Philip H. Howard

3. Consolidation of agriculture

The consolidation of firms from very many small family run ones to a few large transnational ones, has led to the concentration of profits in the hands of a few. Concentration of economic power translates to political power, as these seed companies are able to lobby for even greater privileges.

Consolidation is happening a) horizontally along the same stage of the food supply chain, b) vertically by owning both biotech research and develop companies, as well as the companies that deliver these technologies and c) globally across new international markets. International trade agreements have broken down national barriers to entry, and helping these companies make inroads in several developing countries like China, Brazil and India.

How does this affect sustainable agriculture?

This trend is worrying  renewable agriculture prospects because of a number of reasons.

Firstly, while historically farmers used to save and replant for seeds, they are doing so less and less, as they tend to source new seeds from seed companies.

Secondly, more research money is pouring into seeds that can be patented, rather than improving seed varieties for easy replanting that make farmers independent.

And thirdly, it is leading to less seed diversity, because seed companies are acquiring profitable subsidiaries and eliminating unprofitable lines of business.

Developing countries are places of immense agricultural biodiversity, with millions of poor farmers dependent on self-sufficient, low-input, small landholdings based renewable agriculture. A wave of domination by seed companies has to be resisted strongly to make sure that the poorer billion of the world is to be fed without coming into the clutches of large seed firms.

*****************************************************************************************************************

Further links you may be interested in:

A talk by Vandana Shiva on Seeds:

Video link here
 

1. There are a lot of interesting details on the methodology used to construct the infograph and the research study itself as well as a look at the individual companies outlined earlier. Please read for further information, the document by Prof Howard here.

2. EWTT: Vandana Shiva: Traditional Knowledge, Biodiversity and Sustainable Living

3. EWTT: UN Report: Ecological Farming Can Feed The World

4. EWTT: Go GM Free in Australia

5. EWTT: Dr Mira Shiva: Health Effects of GM Food

6. EWTT: Lim Li Ching : GMO Free

7. EWTT: State of the World Report 2011: Innovations that Nourish the Planet

8. EWTT: Prakash Singh Raghuvanshi: One Farmer’s Crusade to save Indigenous Seeds

9. EWTT: Nero’s Guests and Farmer Suicides in India

10. EWTT: The Source Project

11. EWTT: India’s GM bill “Anti-People, Anti-Nature” 

12. EWTT: Better labelling of GM foods in Singapore essential

Share/Save

Today sees an important report being released by Greenpeace Australia against GM wheat trials in the country. These trials are clearly, as the report alleges, a result of government-industry nexus, rather than for the interests of consumers or farmers.  Featured here are the various GM campaigns in Australia and the people behind them as well as a video interview with two leading GM activists.

Australia is one of the leading food exporters in the world, which is all the more reason for the rest of us outside the country to pay close attention to the developments there, especially regarding the regulation or non-regulation of GM crops.

Particularly disturbing are the recent GM wheat trials which have been approved by CSIRO, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Australia’s national science agency responsible to the Australian government.

Claire Parfitt, Greenpeace Australia

Claire Parfitt, Sustainable Agriculture Campaigner for Greenpeace Australia filled me in on the details on my recent trip to Sydney.

According to Parfitt, “GM wheat trials have been planted in 5 locations across Australia.  We expect another 4 trials to be planted in the next few weeks.  The development of GM wheat is accelerating in Australia and is extending around the world.  Just this week, the UK government received an application for the trial of GM wheat”

She also added in response to my query about the exposure Singapore has to Australian wheat, it “imports around 350,000 tonnes of wheat in 2010 of which the USA supplied roughly 60,000 tonnes and Australia roughly 100,000 tonnes.  It is also highly likely that Australian wheat is processed in Indonesia and then sent on to Singapore as processed foodstuffs.”

No doubt it is also highly likely that  GM wheat, if commercialised,could find its way into some Asian countries either directly through imports, or by their opening up borders to GM wheat trials.

Greenpeace Australia has in fact released today an important report entitled “Australia’s Wheat Scandal: The Biotech Takeover of Our Daily Food” which alleges that Australia’s national science body CSIRO is in partnership with biotech companies to commercialise GM wheat.   The full-fledged report can be downloaded here.

The Greenpeace report highlights large gaps in the risk analysis on GM wheat including • Lack of specification over which foreign gene has been inserted into the wheat plants • Lack of genetic mapping to determine the number of foreign genes inserted or how stable the resulting GMO is • Lack of testing for toxic and allergic effects of GM wheat and • Failure to provide a credible plan to prevent GM wheat from contaminating in the field.

The key points in the report Australia’s Wheat Scandal: The Biotech Takeover of Our Daily Food which can be downloaded here are:

*Australia is among the world’s top five wheat exporters. GM wheat has been rejected by all of the other major wheat growing nations.

*There is a long history of the evidence of GM contamination in Australia. Details of 29 reported incidents of contamination and 169 breaches of security licenses issued by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) are recorded.

*This year’s GM wheat trials were proposed and approved while two directors of Nufarm were serving on the board of the CSIRO. Nufarm is the exclusive distributor of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready products in Australia.

* Clearly, the Australian Government is well aware of the risks of releasing GM wheat into the environment. OGTR itself says “Gene technology has the potential to cause unintended effects due to the process used to insert new genetic material or by producing a gene product that affects multiple traits”  and that “ there may be unintended effects due to random insertion of the introduced genetic material…”

*The CSIRO announced that GM wheat from this year’s field trials in the ACT (Australia Common Territories) will be used for human feeding trials. This will be the first time in the world that GM wheat will be tested on humans. However,there is currently no publicly available information on the parameters of these animal-feeding studies and the OGTR does not require testing for potential toxic or allergic effects. The limited public information that is available indicates that CSIRO’s tests on rats and pigs will run for just 28 days before GM wheat is tested on humans. The first two phases of human tests will go for just one day.

*To determine if GM crops are safe to eat, Australia’s food regulator relies on the data provided by corporations invested in GM development. The lack of independent testing is cause for concern, and those independent studies that do exist have produced alarming results. Independent analysis of biotech ratfeeding data, retrieved through a court order, found signs of toxicity in the GMfed rat groups were signifi cantly higher than non-GM fed groups, with greatest impact on the kidney and liver.

Fran Murrell, MADGE Australia

Two leading organisations in addition to Greenpeace Australia which are determined GM Free campaigners are MADGE Australia and Gene Ethics.  I met up with Fran Murrell, one of the co-founders of the voluntary group MADGE (Mothers Are Demystifying Genetic Engineering) who, quite fortunately, was in Sydney that week from Melbourne to deliver a few talks. In the video below, she dwells on the need for better food labelling in Australia, and the campaign by Greenpeace to remove S-26 Soy, a Pfizer manufactured infant formula milk with GM content. Australian mothers had last year protested to remove S-26 soy from supermarket shelves.

Murrell also touched upon the loopholes in GM labelling in Australia. Though there is a requirement for mandatory labelling, several highly refined ingredients such as sugars, oils, starches, soy-based ingredients like soy lecithin, as well as dairy products from cows that have been fed on GM animal feed escape the labelling process.

Vivienne Reiner, Gene Ethics

Gene Ethics is Australia’s leading non-profit organisation promoting a GM Free Australia for the last 24 years. Vivienne Reiner, Media Officer at Gene Ethics highlighted the Steve Marsh case where an organic farmer in Western Australia had lost his organic farm’s certification due to contamination from his neighbour’s GM Canola, and is now using his own funds to bring a lawsuit against his neighbour. Steve Marsh needs financial help to carry this through, and donations are welcome through the Steve Marsh Benefit Fund.

The outcome of the Steve Marsh lawsuit could become an important legal precedent for Australia and the rest of the world. Seed companies like Monsanto can sue farmers whose crops have become contaminated by GM crops, under the pretext of infringing patent rules, despite it not being their fault.  This was portrayed effectively in the movie, Food Inc.

Here is the video interview with Fran Murrell of MADGE Australia and Vivienne Reiner of Gene Ethics.

Video link here

Badly required is a “Farmer’s Protection Fund” as suggested by Greenpeace’s Claire Parfitt whom I mentioned earlier.  It puts the financial liability on seed companies rather than on the individual farmer who finds his field contaminated by GM crops. Here’s an extract from Greenpeace’s write-up on the subject which explains this clearly:

“Australia currently offers no legal protection for farmers whose land is contaminated with genetically modified (GM) seed patented by multinational companies. The result is that a farmer whose crop is contaminated with GM seed that they did not plant, receives no financial compensation for the costs of contamination. The costs of contamination are significant, ranging from the loss of non-GM premiums of $50 per tonne for conventional canola and $500-$800 per tonne for organic wheat to the costs of attempting to remove GM seed and plants over a number of years. Farmers can also be forced to pay royalties to patent owners for use of their seed, even though they did not choose to plant GM seed.

Greenpeace has developed draft legislation to protect Australian farmers by placing liability for GM contamination clearly with the GM companies that hold the patents to GM seed.

…………..

By establishing a Farmer Protection Fund, to be overseen by Farmer Protection Administration Boards in each state and territory, governments can ensure that traditional farmers don’t bear all of the costs associated with GM. This approach also avoids the need for individual litigation that pits farmer against farmer.

The funding for a Farmer Protection Fund would be provided through a GM industry bond, paid by the biotech industry per acreage of GM seed sown and held by government as a deposit against potential damages caused to Australian farmlands. Similar industry funds operate in a number of sectors in Australia, the mining industry for example, to ensure that the Australian government balances Australian’s interests with the benefits of investment by multinational companies.”

It is to everyone’s benefit that we observe closely what happens with the GM campaigns in Australia as we’re all interlinked in a globalised trading regime. We can also support the various campaigns by the organisations mentioned above, by signing petitions and spreading the word around, and equally important as Fran Murrell says in the video, questioning what is in our food and how it is made.

The future of food, believe it or not, is literally in our hands, because it is alert and vocal citizens of the world like you and me who can and need to create a powerful and collective force against the relentless onslaught of global agribusiness that is driven purely by profit and profit alone. We as consumers need to stand up for the health and safety of our families, our farmers and future generations.

**********************************************************************************************************
About the interviewer:

Bhavani Prakash is the Founder of Eco WALK the Talk.com and advocates a GM-free world. She can be contacted at bhavani[at] ecowalkthetalk.com .  Join EWTT on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.

**********************************************************************************************************

Further Links you may be interested in:

1. EWTT: Dr Vandana Shiva: Traditional Knowledge, Biodiversity and Sustainable Development

2. EWTT: Dr Mira Shiva: Health Effects of GM Food

3. EWTT: Lim Li Ching : GMO Free

Share/Save

Lim Li Ching

Lim Li Ching, who is co-author of the book “GMO Free” works with the biosafety and sustainable agriculture programs at Third World Network (TWN),  an international NGO based in Malaysia. TWN covers developmental issues, policy advocacy work, climate change, WTO, Biosafety issues, to advance social justice with a pro-poor agenda. She is also a Senior Fellow at the Oakland Institute .

The book “GMO Free”, a compilation of the studies by the Independent Science Panel comprising prominent scientists in the field, summarises a vast amount of literature and extensive scientific evidence. As the subtitle states, the book, “Exposes the Hazards of Biotechnology to Ensure the Integrity of Our Food Supply”.  Lim Li Ching spoke to us recently and shares her views on various aspects of the GM debate.

EWTT: How did you get interested in studying genetically modified foods and ecological agriculture?

LLC: While I was in school, I was inspired by a cousin who worked for Sahabat Alam Malaysia (Friends of the Earth Malaysia) and was always a ‘green’. I did my first degree in Ecology, then worked with WWF Malaysia on marine conservation issues for several years. My focus then shifted to development issues e.g., poverty alleviation. I then did my MPhil in Development Studies. After graduating I lived in the UK for several years, where I worked for both the Third World Network (TWN) with their biosafety/GM programme and the Institute of Science in Society, one of TWN’s partner organizations.

EWTT: Tell us about the Independent Science Panel whose summary of findings is in your book.

LLC: The Independent Science Panel (ISP) was set up about 8 years ago, at the height of the GM debate in the UK, and chaired by Dr Mae Wan Ho, Director of The Institute of Science in Society (ISIS). ISIS is an independent think tank with the aim of promoting science for public good, independent of commercial or other special interest.

The ISP brought together a team of scientists who had questions about GM safety, and they submitted dossiers and responses to regulators. Their study of existing literature and scientific evidence, basically confirmed concerns over the safety of GMOs, and also established the benefits of various forms of sustainable agriculture. They make a strong case for a worldwide ban on all environmental release of GM crops and to pave the way towards ecological farming methods.

EWTT: Can you elaborate on why the concept of ‘substantial equivalence’ followed by US regulatory authorities, and some other countries is flawed and not universally adopted?

LLC: The concept of susbstantial equivalence is a regulatory one, which claims that a novel food (for example, GM foods) should be considered the same as and as safe as a conventional food if it demonstrates the same characteristics and composition as the conventional food. However this concept has been heavily criticized as being unscientific and not well defined.

One key issue is that US is the leading producer and developer of GM crops. They use the concept to basically take away the need for regulation of GMOs by saying that as they are ‘substantially equivalent’ to their conventional counterparts, they don’t need to come under the regulatory process. The reality however is that apart from US and a few other GM producers, many other countries think that GMOs are different and that they do carry specific risks, and because they move around due to international trade, there has to be some sort of international regulation.

EWTT: What are the international regulations concerning GMOs?

LLC: The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety which is under the Convention on Biological Diversity largely regulates the export and import of GMOs between countries, but it also sets the international minimum standards on biosafety, so many countries that are parties to the Protocol like Malaysia for example, have set up their own national laws on GMOs. The basis of laws related to the development, production and research of GMOs and the environmental release of GMOs is that ‘they are different from their conventional counterparts and carry potential risks’ and ‘you can’t just release these organisms into nature without any controls in place.’  They have to undergo an approvals process, for example, if a developer or producer of GMOs wants to export a GMO into a country, it would have to get the prior permission of the country concerned, which will do a risk assessment, and make a decision on whether to accept it or not.

The key here is that if you look at some of the international standards such as the Codex Alimentarius guidelines for food safety assessments for foods containing GMOs, they look at ‘substantial equivalence’ as a starting point. Many countries who have regulations on biosafety say well, substantial equivalence is a starting point, and a comparative way of looking at things, and as we have years and years of experience with conventional foods, so we can question, ‘are there any differences and any particular differences that should be followed up?”

So while there is still a big debate on the safety of GMOs, to me it is settled as we have an international treaty that deals with it which clearly says that GMOs are different, they carry specific risks, and there is a need for regulation.

EWTT: What is the state of biosafety regulation in Asia?

LLC: Worldwide, there are currently 161 parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which came into force in 2003. Singapore is not a party to the Protocol, although it does have some guidelines on the issue. Its attitude towards GMOs are more permissive as compared to other countries in the region.

Malaysia has ratified the Cartagena Protocol and a national law was passed in 2007 on biosafety. The crux, of course, lies in the implementation and enforcement of the law.

As a party to the Protocol, it sets up the process envisaged, so if for example, Monsanto wants to market its products, it has to go through an approvals process, and get the approval of the government. There is basically a risk assessment done through a committee which evaluates the dossiers. As an NGO, we used to sit on the GM advisory committee in Malaysia and we were able to access the technical dossiers and give our comments. The process could be improved and of course there are gaps, but in general at least we have a law that regulates GMOs.

Of course, we can always question whether this committee has the capacity, and have they given due consideration to other impartial opinions? But this is an issue that a lot of countries have had to grapple with, and it is not unique to Malaysia. The fact is that there is at least a law, and you can’t just send GM products to our country. There is some kind of regulatory process, and we have to assess them, and then take a decision of whether to import them.

Asia-Pacific countries which are a party to the Cartegena Protocol on Biosafety

Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, New Zealand, Pakistan, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam.

NOT a Party: Singapore, Australia, US  (though Australia has mandatory labelling of GM food)

Full list of nations which are parties to the protocol can be found here

“India is a party to the Protocol and has its own laws governing GMOs. It went through this regulatory process where it put on hold the introduction of Bt Brinjal.  Philippines is another party to the Protocol, however it is one country that is actively planting GM crops despite various NGO objections.   In China, they actually have public funds allocated for biosafety research, which many countries don’t have. They have commercialised GM cotton and GM trees, but there is a big debate in China about GM rice. There is concern, and this has taken a lot of time to go through the system as it is a staple food crop and they don’t want to get it wrong. So China has a slightly different situation, as there is public research and not just industry research, so even there is a lot of biotechnology development, there is a bit of a countervailing force.”  (Lim Li Ching)

EWTT: What do the various studies on safety of GMOs for human consumption say?

LLC: When we look at the health studies on GMOs, the recent papers by Domingo and Bordonaba (2011), and Seralini et al. (2011) show that the database on which to make a judgement on safety has been very small. At the same time, there has been a big push for these products leaving us with a situation where regulation is trying to play ‘catch up’, because GMOs are already out there in the environment and food supply chain of many countries whereas the safeguards are not yet in place.

One of the biggest lessons we can learn is that the changes or effects of GMOs we are talking about are likely to take a long time before they manifest. There have been a few studies that point to what we can call ‘early warnings’, that provide some results that need to be looked at in more detail, but you can see the trend that in most studies funded by the GM industry, scientists say, ‘no problem.’ On the other hand, most studies done by truly independent groups are saying, ‘there’s something we need to look at here’.

The problem is that every time a study like this raising doubts on GMOs is published, there’s a lot of backlash, and vilification of the scientists. There’s a lot of criticism and unwillingness to have an honest engagement to really look at the issue and say, ‘this is a problem.’ As scientists, we need to do more research and try and answer these questions, to look at all the things that are being raised now.

This is one issue that very much characterises the GM debate. Though there is still a big scientific debate going on about the concerns regarding GMOs, there is a big push by the industry to release them into the environment.

A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants
Jose L. Domingo, Jordi Gine Bordonaba
Environment International 37 (2011) 734–742
http://bit.ly/ge44Uu

Abstract
In recent years, there has been a notable concern on the safety of genetically modified (GM) foods/plants, an important and complex area of research, which demands rigorous standards. Diverse groups including consumers and environmental Non Governmental Organizations (NGO) have suggested that all GM foods/plants should be subjected to long-term animal feeding studies before approval for human consumption. In 2000 and 2006, we reviewed the information published in international scientific journals, noting that the number of references concerning human and animal toxicological/health risks studies on GM foods/plants was very limited. The main goal of the present review was to assess the current state-of-the-art regarding the potential adverse effects/safety assessment of GM plants for human consumption.

The number of citations found in databases (PubMed and Scopus) has dramatically increased since 2006. However, new information on products such as potatoes, cucumber, peas or tomatoes, among others was not available. Corn/maize, rice, and soybeans were included in the present review. An equilibrium in the number research groups suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns, was currently observed. Nevertheless, it should be noted that most of these studies have been conducted by biotechnology companies responsible of commercializing these GM plants. These findings suggest a notable advance in comparison with the lack of studies published in recent years in scientific journals by those companies. All this recent information is herein critically reviewed.

………
Final remarks

In the same line of our previous papers (Domingo, 2000, 2007; Domingo-Roig and Gómez-Arnáiz, 2000), the main purpose of this review-article was to critically revise the published scientific literature on potential toxic effects/health risks of GM plants. It was noticed that the total number of general references on GMOs in general, and GM foods/plants in particular, found in the databases PubMed and Scopus has considerably increased between our 2006 search (Domingo, 2007) and the current one. In spite of this, the number of studies specifically focused on safety assessment of GM plants is still limited. However, it is important to remark that for the first time, a certain equilibrium in the number of research groups suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns, was observed.

Moreover, it is worth mentioning that most of the studies demonstrating that GM foods are as nutritional and safe as those obtained by conventional breeding, have been performed by biotechnology companies or associates, which are also responsible of commercializing these GM plants. Anyhow, this represents a notable advance in comparison with the lack of studies published in recent years in scientific journals by those companies (Domingo, 2007). The scientific community may finally be able to critically evaluate and discuss all that information, which was not possible until now. Scientists know quite well how different may be the information published in reputed international journals, which has been submitted to peer-review processes, from those general comments/reports not submitted to this selective procedure.

A relatively remarkable finding of the present review is that the published scientific literature between October 2006 (Domingo, 2007) and August 2010 (current review) on edible GM plants, concerns only to three products: corn/maize, soybeans, and rice, rice being comparatively the less abundant. We have not been able to find citations involving investigations on GM potatoes (except a review by Arvanitoyannis et al., 2008), peas, tomatoes, pepper, etc., after October 2006. A summary of experimental studies (October 2006–August 2010) concerning dietary administration of those products to various animal species is shown in Table 1. With respect to corn/maize, various studies have concluded that the transgenic varieties 1507 (MacKenzie et al., 2007), 59122 (Malley et al., 2007; Juberg et al., 2009; He et al., 2008),1507×59122 (Appenzeller et al., 2009a), 98140 (Appenzeller et al., 2009b; McNaughton et al., 2007), Y642 (He et al., 2009), and MON 88017 (Healy et al., 2008) were as safe as conventional quality protein maize. In contrast, Séralini’s group raised concern regarding some commercialized GM maize (NK 603, MON 810 and MON 863) (Séralini et al., 2007, 2009; de Vendômois et al., 2009).

Similarly, scientific controversy is also present in relation to the safety of GM soybeans. While it has been reported that 356043 (Sakamoto et al., 2007) and 305423 (Delaney et al., 2008) soybeans were as safe as conventional non-GM soybeans, some authors are still concerned by the safety of GM soybeans and recommend to investigate the long-term consequences of GM diets and the potential synergistic effects with other products and/or conditions (Malatesta et al., 2008a,b; Cisterna et al., 2008; Magaña-Gómez et al., 2008).

In the period here revised, October 2006–August 2010, a few reviews on health risks of GMfoods/plants have been also published (Dona and Arvanitoyannis, 2009; Magana-Gomez and de la Barca, 2009; Key et al., 2008). In general terms, all these authors agree in remarking that more scientific efforts are clearly necessary in order to build confidence in the evaluation and acceptance of GM foods/plant by both the scientific community and the general public. Especially critical is the recent review by Dona and Arvanitoyannis (2009), who remarked that results of most studies with GM foods would indicate that they may cause some common toxic effects such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive effects, and might alter the hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters. These authors also concluded that the use of recombinant GH or its expression in animals should be re-examined since it has been shown that it increases IGF-1 which, in turn, may promote cancer. A harsh response to that review was recently published in the same journal (Rickard, 2010). This is indeed only an example on the controversial debate on GMOs, which remains completely open at all levels.

Finally, we would like to indicate that the review on allergenicity of GM plants has not been included herein. European legislation stipulates that GMOs have to be monitored to identify potential adverse environmental effects (Reuter et al., 2010). The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has recently published a Scientific Opinion regarding assessment of allergenicity of GM plants and microorganisms and derived food and feed (EFSA, 2010). Detailed information on this important issue is available here.

EWTT: One of the studies that pointed to a fundamental flaw in the GM technology itself was Arpad Putzai’s study that raised a lot of debate in the UK in the late 1990s? Do you think the GM technology is based on a flawed theory?

LLC: Though I’m not a geneticist, I can refer you to the work of my co-author Dr Mae Wan Ho who is one. Her book, “Living with the Fluid Genome” really looks at this in detail, and what we are discovering about gene expression. You are correct in saying, that the foundations of genetic engineering is based on One Gene = One Protein = One Trait, a central dogma which has actually been shown not to be true, because we know that one gene can produce many different proteins and many different traits. When scientists sequenced the human genome, they expected to find a lot more genes than they did, and then they realised through processes like alternative gene splicing, that scientists are getting more and more information that shows that this kind of linear thinking doesn’t hold true anymore.

The human body has about 100,000 proteins. It was expected before that each protein would have a corresponding gene. However a report by the Human Genome Project
in 2000 only found about 30,000 genes in the human body – which is roughly the same as mice and not much more than a weed with 26,000 genes.

So when you have so many more proteins per gene, a gene can be found to express itself in many different ways, which is not a deterministic process as was once thought. Dr Mae Wan Ho also explains in her book how environmental factors affect gene expression, so when you slice a gene and insert it into another species, you cannot predetermine with full certainty how it is going to behave.”

EWTT: What are the concerns about horizontal and vertical gene transfer?

LLC: Horizontal gene transfer is gene trasfer between unrelated species and is more common among single-celled organisms such as bacteria. Unintended horizontal gene transfer of GM genes to bacteria is a potential biosafety concern. Some of these concerns are outlined in this publication, ‘Unintended Horizontal Transfer of Recombinant DNA’ by Kaare M. Nielsen and Daniele Daffonchio.

In addition, genetic engineering is forcing different species to share genes that they won’t normally share in nature, for example a moth gene in an apple or a fish gene in strawberries. As we have discussed before, there is no scientific consensus on the safety of such gene transfer, there is still a scientific debate going on, and there are papers which show there are concerns about the health impacts. The question is, whether regulation is sufficient, and that it actually calls for the application of the precautionary principle that we don’t release something into nature, unless we fully understand its implications.

Vertical gene transfer is gene transfer to progeny by sexual reproduction, e.g., pollen flow between the same or related plant species. In the case of GMOs, this could lead to ‘contamination’, whereby genes from GM crops are found in wild relatives, native species, or conventional crops. You may recall the story of Ignacio Capela, a scientist from the University of Berkley who came under very heavy attack by the biotech industry when he found that native species of corn in Mexico had got contaminated by GM corn.

Scientists are concerned about the impact on biodiversity. I can refer you to a paper entitled, ‘Vertical (Trans)gene Flow: Impliations for Crop Diversity and Wild Relatives’ by David Quist  which talks about vertical gene flow and why it’s an issue.

On the commercial side, there’s an issue because if GM genes contaminate non-GM crops, there will be a market rejection, particularly of organically grown crops, where organic standards exclude genetic engineering.

EWTT: How can the public engage in the GM debate?

LLC: Consumer awareness is very important for this whole issue. In Europe for example, the awareness about food safety is quite high – they’ve had the history of the BSE debate (mad cow disease).

Perhaps in Asia the awareness is not that high, though people are becoming increasingly conscious of where their food is coming from, and how it is produced. In the absence of GM labelling, buying organic with 3rd party certification which excludes GMOs, is one way of making the choice.

To learn more about organic labelling, look at the Certified Organic Labelling Guide by Organic.org, and GMO Free Guides that apply to certain countries.   Some of the countries with mandatory labelling of GMOs are EU, Australia, Japan and China. Voluntary labelling is followed by Canada and Hong Kong among others.

The public should be encouraged to find out more about the food they eat, because it affects us fundamentally, and the GM debate is situated within a bigger debate of how our food is produced globally, and how it impacts biodiversity and food security.

There’s a lot of attention these days on agriculture because of high food prices. People in international institutions and development circles are saying we need to invest in agriculture, given the history of not investing in agriculture, despite it being very important for developing countries where it affects a larger proportion of the population. The question is, can we change the way we produce food under the broad umbrella of industrial agriculture of which GM is a part? This has proven to be too resource and energy intensive in terms of chemicals and other inputs. There is also a concern about climate change because of the greenhouse gas emissions from industrial agriculture.

Yes we have produced enough food to feed the poor so far, and of course, people are still hungry which is largely a political, distribution issue. In terms of quantity of food there is enough, but then it has come at a huge cost to the environment and also at a cost to the farmers.

So when people start thinking about where our food comes from, they should not take it for granted, and query the type of production system the world has, and the ones that are dominant of which GM is a subset.

Raising awareness is definitely important, and people are getting to know there are a lot of issues intertwined with this, such as animal welfare, consuming less meat due to climate change and biodiversity and so on. When you look at developing countries where agriculture is so important, so many things come into play such as trade rules, subsidies for agriculture, Official Development Assistance – these are big issues, and integral issues.

So yes, public awareness is critical for the future of the planet.

**********************************************************************************************************
About the interviewer:

Bhavani Prakash is the Founder of Eco WALK the Talk.com and an anti-GM advocate. She can be contacted at bhavani[at] ecowalkthetalk.com .  Join EWTT on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.

**********************************************************************************************************

Further Links you may be interested in:

1. Mitigating and Adapting to Climate Change through Ecological Agriculture by Lim Li Ching

2. Overhaul of Agricultural Systems Needed by Lim Li Ching

3. Co-Editor of Book “Biosafety First” Lim Li Ching

4. TWN’s Biosafety website

5. YouTube: Dr Mae Wan Ho video:Part 1 , Part 2 , Part 3 and Part 4

6. Video: the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety

7. EWTT: Dr Mira Shiva: Health Effects of GM Food

8. EWTT: Safe Food Guide: GMO Free Food

9. EWTT: Dr Vandana Shiva: Traditional Knowledge, Biodiversity and Sustainable Development

10. EU and Institute for Health and Consumer Protection (Pg 6) : GM Policy Status in Selected Countries

11. Study showing “Association of financial or professional conflict of interest to research outcomes on health risks or nutritional assessment studies of genetically modified products”

Photo Courtesy: Corn – EJFoodBlogspot.com

Share/Save

Dr Vandana Shiva needs little introduction as a prominent environmental, social justice and anti-GM activist.  In 2010, she received the Sydney Peace Prize and was named by Guardian UK in March 2011 as one of the top 100 women in the world.

In the following interview, she explains the work done at the organisation she founded in 1987 – Navdanya Biodiversity Conservation Farm and Bija Vidyapeeth, the research and training arm. She reiterates that ecological farming is  pro-peace, pro- biodiversity, pro-culture and pro-livelihood for the poor.

Dr Vandana Shiva

She spoke to us recently during “Grandmother’s University” at Navdanya, Dehradun, India.  The three day course was intended to celebrate Traditional knowledge, Biodiversity and Sustainable livelihoods in an era of globalisation where these are coming under increasing pressure. Not only is this traditional knowledge disappearing, knowledge as a commons is being appropriated and patented by corporations to be sold for abnormal profit.

The participants of the course interacted with the Garhwali women of the Himalayan hills, who had travelled far to teach us some of their wisdom.

The wisdom of grandmothers is in Dr Shiva’s words, “our capacity to love, unconditionally. In our society of competition, of insecurity and fear, that steadiness of love and compassion is brought to the next generation. Just because they are grandmothers, they have a long view. It’s called sustainability in today’s jargon. It’s really a thinking about future generations – not just of me, myself, today.”

Dr Shiva answers here questions about the myth of GM, how to feed cities, the shadows of growth and development, and the role of civil society.

Video link here

The importance of saving seeds:

Seed list at Navdanya

We visited the seed bank within Navdanya Biodiversity Conservation Farm, which distributes valuable traditional seeds to farmers.  By interacting with the co-ordinators of Navdanya – Rukmini who oversees about 100 villages in the Garhwal region (Uttarakhand district, N. India), and Jumana who works with farmers in the Vidarbha region of Maharashtra, which has the maximum number of suicides in the country due to the economic hardships caused by Bt Cotton; the importance of saving traditional seed varieties against the onslaught of hybrid and GM seeds became amply clear.

Preserving Biodiversity

Navdanya is now a network of seed keepers and organic producers across 16 states in India. It has helped set up 54 community seed banks across the country, and has trained half a million farmers in sustainable agriculture. It is also actively involved in reviving indigenous knowledge, creating awareness about the problems of GM foods and the rights of people against biopiracy in the face of globalisation and climate change.

Here’s a recording in part, of a session by Dr Vandana Shiva at Navdanya, where she clearly explains four kinds of seeds – open pollination, green revolution varieties, hybrid varieties and GM seeds. This distinction is fundamentally important to understand the arguments against genetic engineering.  She also describes how the cost of GM seeds and pesticide use soar astronomically, which are major factors behind the indebtedness and consequent suicide of farmers.   (Kindly excuse the poor lighting conditions in the room, which is more than made up by Dr Shiva’s articulate discourse)

Video link here

About the Writer:

Bhavani Prakash is the Founder of Eco WALK the Talk .com. She is passionate about the role of individuals and communities in bringing about the much needed change we need to see in the world.  She was an economist in her previous avatar, and is now an environmental and social justice activist using social media as well as offline community participation in her advocacy of a greener, fairer and happier planet. She writes and conducts talks and workshops on sustainability and can be contacted at bhavani[at]ecowalkthetalk.com. Follow Eco WALK the Talk on Facebook, Twitter, Linked IN and YouTube

Further links you may be interested in: