"We don't believe in process labelling"
R. PRASAD
|
This is the first time that Madelyn E. Spirnak, Senior Advisor for Agricultural Biotechnology, U.S. Department of State, is visiting India. In an interview during her recent visit to Chennai, she spoke about various issues concerning genetically modified crops. Excerpts:
|
— Photo: S.Thanthoni
FOCUS AREAS: "It is important for this [Indian] Government to work on crops with salinity and drought resistance, and enhanced nutrition," says Madelyn Spirnak.
What brings you to India?
I primarily travel to different countries to discuss agriculture technology products as a developmental tool to increase production in developing countries and to also talk about regulatory policies. India is an important country in so many ways.
There has been so much resistance to genetically modified (GM) crops in European countries and a few other countries. How do you intend to overcome it?
I think we hear a lot about resistance. We don't hear a lot about acceptance and how widely it is being used. In Europe, just over three years, three more countries are growing GM crops.
Critics of the technology may criticise it because the technology is new and it is unknown and there is a fear of the unknown, which is a normal human fear. But the science has been tested for over ten years. We [the U.S.] first commercialised Bt [Bacillus thuringiensis] cotton in 1996.
The Bt cotton crop failed in Andhra Pradesh and some other states. Commercial cultivation of three varieties in Andhra Pradesh has not been allowed. Your comments.
I don't know about it specifically and I don't have details of the case. So I don't want to talk about something I don't know. But my information is farmers, on the whole, are supportive of Bt cotton.
The yields have increased significantly and the acreage was 500,000 hectares in 2004 throughout India. In 2005 that increased to 1.3 million hectares. It is a significant increase for a one-year period. So that must indicate that farmers are interested in using the technology.
I am not an India expert, but I have heard and I understand that there were other conditions that led to problems with cotton crops that were not connected with the gene technology. Climatic conditions like drought or rain, where many crops failed not just the Bt cotton.
Many studies that show positive results in India are either done by seed companies or are funded by them. How much of objectivity can we expect from such studies?
Any regulatory process has to look at the studies and make some determination. As I understand, States determine which varieties have to be licensed. That is the [State's] responsibility to determine that an appropriate variety is being used. I don't want to get into the ethical issues. That is not the issue here.
There is a need to have refuge when growing GM crops. But with the average land holding in India being small, how relevant is GM technology here?
I think the technology has to be used properly. If the farmer thinks he would profit he would buy it. Maybe the technology is not appropriate for all farmers. But then they should have a choice if the Government has conducted the tests and determined that the technology is safe.
If you have a science based regulatory system, you have adequate transparent risk perception process that can establish some confidence about the product. And if the process has deemed that the technology can be used, then it should be a choice for the farmer whether or not to use it. But you need to have a regulatory process in place.
There is widespread apprehension that pests would develop resistance faster to GM crops and weeds would become superweeds. Your comments.
Many fear about resistance. On resistance, let me mention I am not a scientist; I am a diplomat and not a farmer either. So I will tell you what I know. Resistance is an issue for any herbicide or pesticide.
So you have to follow certain methods to reduce the chances of resistance. So you need to have refuge, you need to follow integrated pest management to reduce the chances of losing the efficacy of the herbicide or pesticide.
So I don't think anyone can say that any one method of herbicide is going to last forever. So you need to think about the next generation. That is one answer.
I have read about some instances where there may be some weeds developing resistance but don't think it is a situation that is widespread. So you need to be always thinking ahead.
But we focused much on Bt and Roundup Ready. There is the next generation of biotechnology that is being developed to increase nutrition. There is a project in existence for a while for golden rice to increase betacarotene.
There are projects going on in the U.S. to increase starch and reduce sugar in crops. So there is great promise in the technology beyond the issues of herbicide and pesticide. And it is important for this [Indian] Government to work on crops with salinity and drought resistance, and enhanced nutrition.
There have been instances where the yield from GM crops has been less compared with conventional crops. Your comments.
Whether it was a gene or hybrid variety that was not an appropriate variety, I don't know. I don't believe from what I have heard that the cause for failure has to do with the transgenic nature of the crop.
Monsanto was fined $1.5 million under the (U.S.) Foreign Corruption Act
last January for bribing Indonesian officials. So is the apprehension about its track record unjustified?
I don't want to talk about any specific company or case. We have strong anti-corruption Act [in the U.S.]. So all companies know that they need to comply, else they will be fined.
Public attitude towards the company has been influenced by negative stories and certain incidents and by the way the media has projected them. The media wants to find a story. It is interested in cases that interest the public. We don't hear of successes of different countries growing Bt cotton; those are ones that don't come up all the time but negative stories do.
Why is the U.S. very much against labelling GM food?
In the U.S., we have a policy. If you have a final product that is a substantial equivalent to a conventional product, you need not have to label that it contains GMOs [genetically modified organisms] just because it is a product of GMO; it is a process involved. At the end of the day, it is considered equivalent to the conventional product and so we don't believe in labelling.
On the other hand, if you have nutrient enhanced product or a product that contains allergens or toxin, then labelling is required. So we don't believe in process labelling and that is the difference between the U.S. and other countries.
Products can be labelled as a marketing issue, or companies or retailers can choose to label, but it is not a requirement.
But why is the U.S. against labelling even for exports?
Because it would increase costs to producers as well as consumers. As I told you, nearly 90 per cent of soybean, 80 per cent of cotton and 50 per cent of maize are GM [in the U.S.]. We don't segregate [GM and non-GM food].
So if you are requesting a shipment which has no GM or you just have a threshold for GM ingredient, then you are requesting special handling. That will increase costs.
Some people might say, why don't you want the consumers to know and the question is what will it help to know if it has been produced by a certain process. It doesn't change the product. Because we believe there is no substantial difference between GM and conventional product.
What will be your stance in the continued opposition to GM food in Europe due to the labelling issue?
The EU will import soybean, will grow corn and will import processed food with some ingredients produced through GM technology.
But it will be a costly and difficult process to sell this product to the EU now as it has to be labelled to meet EU requirements.
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Sci Tech
