THIRD WORLD NETWORK BIOSAFETY INFORMATION SERVICE
Dear friends and colleagues,
RE: GMO Appraisal Should Include Social Utility, Sustainability
Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety may take into account socio-economic considerations when making decisions about GMOs. Norway was the first country to include sustainability criteria in its domestic biosafety law, and experts recently shared the country’s experience with India.
The Norwegian Gene Technology Act was created to ensure that production and use of GMOs takes place in an ethical and socially justifiable way, in accordance with the principle of sustainable development and without detrimental effects on health and environment. It recognizes that the risk appraisal of GMOs is a multi-dimensional issue, and not just a scientific one. Norway hence opts for a "Impact Assessment", which integrates a scientifically-based environmental risk assessment with an analysis of the social utility and contribution to sustainable development of the GMO on a case by case basis. Transparency, accountability and public participation are essential features in the Norwegian legislation.
With best wishes,
Third World Network
131 Jalan Macalister,
10400 Penang,
Malaysia
Email: twnet@po.jaring.my
Website: www.biosafety-info.net and www.twnside.org.sg To subscribe to other TWN information mailing lists: www.twnnews.net
———————————————————————————————————————
GMO appraisal should include social utility, sustainability requirements – Biosafety Experts
Press release, New Delhi, May 10 2011: At a time when India is about to introduce a Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) Bill in Parliament for applications related to modern biotechnology – and also when the Bt brinjal debate is coming to the fore again with the GEAC consulting experts several of whom represent conflicting interests – a visiting Norwegian biosafety expert pointed out that GMO impact assessment should include social utility and sustainability requirements before their environmental release.
Dr David Quist, a senior scientist heading the Scientific Advisory Unit at the Centre for Biosafety, GenOk, Norway addressed the media in Delhi on the subject of biosafety of GMOs and the Norwegian Gene Technology Act in particular, along with another GM expert, Dr John Fagan of Genetic ID.
Both were in India to contribute to a capacity building workshop on Biosafety of GMOs, with local organizers the Center for Sustainable Agriculture and the Center for Environmental Education that took place in Hyderabad from May 1 to May 7 th, 2011.
"The Norwegian Gene Technology Act has been created to ensure that production and use of genetically modified organisms and production of cloned animals takes place in an ethical and socially justifiable way, in accordance with the principle of sustainable development and without detrimental effects on health and environment", Dr Quist shared.
"The [Norwegian Gene Technology] Act recognizes that the risk appraisal of GMOs is a multi-dimensional issue, and not just a scientific one. Norway hence opts for a "Impact Assessment", which integrates a scientifically-based environmental risk assessment with an analysis of the social utility and contribution to sustainable development of the GMO on a case by case basis." Dr. Quist explained.
"Combining these aspects in one assessment allows Norway to consider not only whether the GM product is safe, but whether it is necessary, and contributing to a sustainable future. This applies not only to GM production in Norway, but also to its production in countries from which GM may be imported from. Safety for Norway and safety for other countries is regarded as no different."
"Transparency, accountability and public participation are essential features in the Norwegian legislation. There are strict legal requirements for public access to information, producer liability, and termination of GMO product use that may be approved but later found to pose adverse effects."
Public hearings are also mandated regarding all applications for commercial and deliberate release, including experimental releases, before any decisions on GMOs are taken. "Without these provisions, one cannot reasonably expect the public to have any confidence in the process, or the safety of products that come out of it", he added.
"I understand that India is about to introduce a Bill in its Parliament for creating a statute to regulate GMOs. A rough approximation to the Norwegian approach is present in the bottom line laid down by the Task Force on Agri-Biotechnology set up by the Government of India: ‘economic well being of farm families, food security of the nation, health security of the consumer, protection of the environment and the security of our national and international trade in farm commodities’.
"Based on the Norwegian experience, and my work in GMO risk assessment, I believe that the proposed BRAI should be centered around such an approach.
There still remain notable uncertainties regarding the use of GMOs in India that need to be addressed, including their appropriateness and utility for addressing the complex set of problems facing Indian agriculture and the Indian farmer.
"My interest as a scientist is to see that good science and rigorous standards are behind the claims of safety and efficacy of any GMO, and that the data is transparent and is independently reproducible. This is not some sort of special requirement, but fundamental principles of good science practice. Based on my still limited reading of regulatory processes on GMOs in this country, India still needs a sincere effort to address these policy shortcomings in its regulatory practices", he said.
Dr. Quist encouraged India to make full use of the emerging guidance documents on risk assessment being developed under the Cartagena Protocol of Biosafety, of which Dr. Quist serves as the Norwegian Representative on its Risk Assessment expert committee. He further urged India to ratify the Nagoya Supplementary Protocol on Liability & Redressal with GMOs, in which India was an active contributor to the outcomes that were finalized last year, and also to devise a strong liability regime within the country as present in the Norwegian legislation.
Dr John Fagan, Chief Scientific Officer of Genetic ID and one of the world’s leading authorities on biosafety, GMO testing and non-GMO certification, added that there is ever-emerging evidence on the questionable safety of GM crops from around the world.
"India did the wise thing by placing a moratorium on the commercial release of Bt brinjal, given the lack of certainty over its safety and the many other issues of concern around this GM food. It would be unwise to think of any limited release of this GMO as is being proposed by some experts since this technology is irreversible and uncontrollable.
"I understand that the Minister for Environment & Forests who imposed the moratorium is also aware of the difficulty in quarantining a GMO and India’s advantage of being a non-GMO producer of various crops except cotton will be jeopardised if it continues its many open-air trials of different crops around the country. I believe that the applications of this technology in India should be governed by strict policy directives keeping in mind sustainable development objectives", he said.
Notes:
i. An English version of the Norwegian Gene Technology Act is available online at:
http://www.regjeringen.no/en/doc/Laws/Acts/gene-technology-act.html?id=173031
ii. The regulations relating to its Impact Assessment, in English, can be found at:
http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/md/dok/lover_regler/forskrifter/2005/regulations-relating-to-impact-assessmen.html?id=440455
For more information, contact:
Dr G V Ramanjaneyulu, Centre for Sustainable Agriculture: 09000699702 & ramoo@csa-india.org
Kavitha Kuruganti, Alliance for Sustainable & Holistic Agriculture (ASHA):
09393001550 & kavitha.kuruganti@gmail.com