Eminent scientists from India have appealed to the Supreme Court not to accept the recommendations of five members of the Technical Expert Committee (TEC) which recommended a moratorium on Genetically Modified (GM) crops.
Scientists say that the recommendations by the five members go against the established mainstream science on GM crops’ safety and utility. They added that it is astounding that in spite of endorsement from leading scientific bodies and academies of the world and regulatory agencies, the TEC has submitted a highly prejudiced report by using information only from sources that support their point of view.
“The five members have completely overlooked overwhelming scientific literature that clearly establishes the safety and utility of GM crops under the field conditions. It is tragic that the TEC has completely lost scientific objectivity by drawing heavily from the discarded international agricultural assessment (IAASTD) that has not been accepted by even a single country in the world. IAASTD report is completely bereft of any objective
science” noted NATURE’s editorial, one of the worlds’s leading and most respected scientific journals.
Dr Shanthu Shantharam, Biosafety Institute of the Iowa State University said in an email interview that, “The TEC has chosen to mischievously mislead the court on GM crops. The committee has deliberately overlooked the opinion of leading scientific organizations in the world and in India, and hundreds of peer reviewed scientific publications.”
Dr G Padmanabhan, Former Director of the Indian Institute of Science deplored the lack of scientific objectivity in the report and criticized its recommendation that India should learn from the Norwegian GenOak laboratory.
He said, “Norway has very little dependence on agriculture and the protocols are only meant to tie up GM crops in regulatory knots for indefinite period of time without any scientific basis, which the anti-GM lobby wants.”
The anti-GM lobby around the world from where Indian anti-GM lobby draws lots of sustenance, have a handful of “scientists” whose contested science has no currency, invent highly convoluted and needless protocols for testing just to discourage and suppress GM technology development, which they try to impose on developing countries with the help local activists.
Dr Shantharam condemned the petitioner’s tactic of asking the court not to accept Dr RS Paroda’s report as it happens based on established main-stream science of modern agriculture.
“Dr. Paroda is the former Director-General of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), the country’s premier agricultural research organization, and no one in the country is better qualified than scientists of the ICAR to judge the safety and utility of GM crops” said Dr Shantharam.
Biotech crop hectares have increased by an unprecedented 100–fold from 1.7 million hectares in 1996, to over 170 million hectares in 2012 which has made biotech crops the fastest adopted crop technology in recent times — the reason — they deliver benefits.
Scientists and regulators in 60 countries have had positive experiences and the fact that three trillion meals have been safely consumed of food including produce from crop sown with biotech-enhanced seeds confirm biotech crops are as safe as conventional crops.
Countries like Brazil and China take the leap forward and it is essential that we are not left behind. Indian farmers deserve to access technologies that are proven to improve agricultural productivity in the fields.
Scientists have urged the Supreme Court to seek wider consultation with the main stream scientific community wit