21st July 2019
I’ve been meaning to write against this deadly irrational principle but never had time to do so. Will write for TOI blogs in the coming weeks. In the meantime some research notes:
21st July 2019
I’ve been meaning to write against this deadly irrational principle but never had time to do so. Will write for TOI blogs in the coming weeks. In the meantime some research notes:
21st July 2019
Extract from Robert Falkner’s “The Global Biotech Food Fight: Why the United States Got It So Wrong”, The Brown Journal of World Affairs, Vol. 14, No. 1 (FALL / WINTER 2007), pp. 99-110.
Let me note at the outset that I comprehensively disagree with the thesis of the writer of this article. I’m only noting a few historical notes here.
Only 30 years ago, the first safety debate on genetic engineering suggested a different and less contentious path for international biotechnology regulation. When scientists first considered the safety of GMO experiments at the Asimolar Conference in 1975, they agreed on a set of safety standards to voluntarily apply in their research. At that time, a broad consensus existed among governments in the industrialized world that self-regulation by the scientific community was working. Even when GMO ex-periments moved from the laboratory to field trials in the 1980s, most governments continued to apply a “light touch” approach to regulation.
The U.S. government was one of the first to create a comprehensive system of regulation, in the form of the 1986 “Co-ordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology,” which divided regulatory authority between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Then and today, the U.S. regulatory system has been based on the belief that the use of genetic engineering does not require a separate regulatory approach, and that biotech products should be assessed according to their specific characteristics, just like any other novel plant or food product. This so-called principle of substantial equivalence has provided a major boost to the biotech sector in the United States, allowing it to commercially introduce GMOs with varying levels of safety testing and weak post-approval oversight.
Most European countries seemed to be following the same route in the mid-1980s. At that time, they were keen to reverse a trend that saw Europe’s fledgling biotechnology industry falling behind leading U.S. firms. But by 1990, the European Union changed course by adopting a pro-environmental system of GMO regulation that was based on Denmark’s progressive biosafety law. The European Commission’s newly created environment directorate-general, tasked to create a harmonized regulatory framework, successfully used the rationale of creating a single European market to push for com¬prehensive regulations. Unlike anti-biotech campaigners, the biotech industry was slow to organize itself at the European level and was weakly involved in the drafting of the new regulations. During the 1980s, the business lobby was held back by a tradition of organizing around products instead of industrial processes and by a fragmentation of the biotechnology sector into small and medium-sized firms.” The new EU regulations created a technology-based system of risk regulation that subjected all biotech products to a comprehensive risk assessment procedure. Decisions on the regulatory approval of new GMOs were informed by the precautionary principle, which meant that they could be prohibited if they were suspected of being harmful—even though this could not be scientifically proven. Given the novelty of biotech products and the potentially serious and long-term damage that they could cause, Europeans decided to err on the side of caution.
Initially, the regulatory differences between the United States and the European Union seemed to play into the hands of U.S. biotech firms. The more permissive regulatory environment in the United States helped Monsanto, DuPont, and Dow Chemicals to cement their global leadership position. In contrast, the European biotech sector struggled to overcome its fragmented industry structure, found it harder to raise capital for new and risky investment, and was constrained by a stricter regulatory environment. But as soon as U.S. farmers began to adopt the first line of GM crops, Europe’s more restrictive stance on biosafety came to cast a shadow over the global expansion of GM products—including in the United States.
The first shipments of GM crops to Europe provoked a fierce anti-biotech campaign in the late 1990s and led to the complete closure of the European market for most of the United States’ corn and soybean exports by late 1998. The European Union’s approval system for GMO imports ground to a halt as more European governments bowed to public pressure and forced a moratorium on new GM products. Because of the high adoption rate of GM varieties in U.S. agriculture and the absence of appropriate infrastructure for segregating GM from non-GM crops, the U.S. farm sector lost an estimated $300 million in annual exports to Europe.
After losing a protracted WTO trade dispute brought by the United States, the European Union lifted its moratorium in 2004, but new GMO labeling and traceability requirements and hostile consumer reactions have kept GM food imports at bay.
To make matters worse for U.S. farmers, GMO market restrictions quickly spread from Europe to other countries. Partly inspired by the European Union’s hardline stance on GMO risks, a growing number of Asian, African, and Latin American countries have created their own biosafety regulations and imposed restrictive import and labeling requirements.
In particular, those countries with an interest in preserving access to non-GM agricultural markets in Europe have resisted the growth of GM crop varieties. Trade-related market opposition has emerged against the introduction of GM rice in India and GM soybeans in China, among others. The economic repercussions of global biotech food restrictions have even shaped market decisions in the United States, the heartland of the agricultural biotech revolution. In 2004, Monsanto announced that it had shelved plans to introduce GM wheat varieties, after consultations with U.S. and Canadian wheat farming organizations had failed to overcome resistance by export-dependent farmers.
The position of countries wishing to subject GMO imports to risk assessment was further strengthened in 2003 when the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety entered into force. Agreed upon at a UN conference in January 2000, the treaty obliges exporters to provide information on internationally traded GMOs and to seek the prior approval of importing countries before such trade can take place. In the case of agricultural commodities containing GMOs, exporters Societies differ with regard to their are obliged to indicate that shipments “may contain” GMOs and to provide risk adversity and how they value information about authorized GM varieties on a central Internet portal.
The treaty contains some far-reaching provisions allowing importing nations to apply precautionary reasons in restricting imports—one of the reasons that the United States objected to the treaty from the beginning. Even though the United States did not sign the accord—it first would have had to become a party to the CBD, the protocol’s mother convention—U.S. agricultural exporters are still likely to be obliged to comply with its main provisions, as most of the world’s agricultural import nations have ratified the agreement.
All these developments have strengthened the prerogative of importing nations to choose their own biosafety strategy, and in many parts of the world they have served to slow down the global spread of GM crops. U.S. officials’ reactions to the rise of precautionary biosafety policies have oscillated between incomprehension and bewilderment, and to some extent, frustration with their inability to convince the world of the blessings of genetic engineering. Why did it come to this, and why did the United States misjudge the situation?
Both the Clinton and Bush administrations repeatedly challenged precautionary biosafety regulations at national and international levels. The United States opposed the creation of the international regime on GMO trade in the 1990s, challenged the European Union’s GMO moratorium at the WTO in 2003, and put pressure on many developing countries to accept U.S. GM food imports. Yet despite these efforts, the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety came into force in 2003, and numerous countries introduced biosafety rules that have restricted international trade in GM crops and food products. Global production of biotech crops may be on the rise and has gradually spread to more countries, but the much-touted biotechnology revolution has come up against entrenched consumer hostility and new regulatory restrictions.
The Cartagena Protocol, the world’s first and only multilateral treaty to deal with GMO trade, has gone some way towards coordinating national policies, but by establishing a devolved system of precautionary risk regulation, it has acknowledged the inherent limits to regulatory harmonization in this policy area.
10th June 2019
This is an important video – the 2000 debate between science and anti-GM passion.
To understand better I transcribed it. The Word version here. The video below, and the transcript with my annotations below that.
TRANSCRIPT WITH MY ANNOTATIONS IN BLUE
Interviewer: Those who favour genetically modified crops insist that they are the best bet for Indian farmers while those opposed to them maintain that the introduction of such foodstuffs will endanger the biodiversity of the country. Those in favour argue that the critics of genetically modified foods are working at the behest of the Western farming lobby afraid of competition from Indian farmers. And those in opposition maintain that the supporters of genetically engineered crops are working for the multinational seed companies. To discuss which group is right we have in the studio Professor CS Prakash director of the Centre for Plant Biotechnology Research at the Tuskegee University and after Vandana Shiva director of the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology. We will start with you dr. Shiva. How would you respond to this charge that you’re working for the interests of the Western farming lobbies?
Vandana: Unfortunately it is the genetic engineering group that is working for the global corporations. That’s the way the technology is organized and is patented. Even when the public sector does enter it works on terms that are totally dependent.
Interviewer: But you’re not answering the question I asked you. Are you working for the Western farming lobbies? I will ask them what they are working for.
Vandana: Not at all. I work for myself and I try my best to serve Indian peasants, especially those who are at that vulnerable situation where any increasing cost of inputs – whether it is seed or chemicals or patent royalties and technology fees – will push them even further over the brink. Then we are already seeing them – the suicide the kidney sales are already indicated.
Interviewer: Now let me ask him the question are you working for the multinational seed companies?
Prakash: Oh, no not at all. I work for myself and for my University and I personally feel that this technology is so pro-farmer, and so somebody who is working for the peasants should allow for the choice for the farmers to decide for themselves.
Interviewer: Why is this pro-farmer?
Prakash: Because this is a technology that specifically favours and helps. It has so much potential into their livelihood and bringing increased food production, bringing in an element of profitability. More than anything this is a choice that the farmers want.
Interviewer: Now you disagree with that view because you said the costs are going to go up
Vandana: The costs are already going up. The replacement of farm seeds by public sector supplied seeds by hybrids has already shot up the price of the seed itself and of the inputs associated with it. In the case of genetically engineered seed the costs will be even higher and all comparisons to date are in the context of large industrial farms of the United States. In the case of India the GE package is a costly package, high-cost package, and unlike what is claimed it is not in any case – whether it’s Roundup resistant or herbicide resistant crops – we do require by their very nature a herbicide associated with the crop and in the case of so-called pest resistant crop, the pest resistance is for a short time to one specific family effect of boll worm (CHECK). All the other pests require spraying.
Prakash: Sure, that is fine but cotton boll work that you mentioned is the single largest pest of which farmers spray about eight or nine of the twelve sprays that do on cotton they do it on that. So if the farmer has to spray only three sprays instead of twelve what is wrong in that? And so it is again a choice of the farmer that that he has to make, whether to go for that or to keep using the pesticide? And so that’s the first choice. Let me address to the other. [Sanjeev: Clearly, this reduces pesticide use]
Interviewer: The costs are going to be higher.
Prakash: Yes, costs are going to be high and again this is a choice that the farmers (have) to make. We had the same arguments for the hybrid seeds. I come from Bangalore where we have this excellent seed company there – Indo American hybrid seeds – that sells hybrid tomato amongst other things, and that day they release their tomato seed, you could see the farmers lining up and waiting all night to buy their seeds. And they spend a lot of money to buy the seed. Why? Because farming is a profession, its not a vocation.
Interviewer: So even if the costs are high the profits are also high? [Sanjeev: This is a key point]
Prakash: Exactly. Farmers are not stupid. It is high time we stop relegating our farmers to the role of fools, that they are gullible, incompetent, they need some environmental screen from the big urban cities to protect them against the clutches of this phenomena.
Vandana: It was the Indian farmers who were the first to uproot the first trials of cotton. It was no green it was no environmentalist. It was farmers of Karnataka and farmers of …
Prakash: It was the farmers who are growing again. [Sanjeev: 90 per cent of India’s farmers are mass-producing Bt cotton today, so Vandana’s points are completely futile]
Vandana: Yes they don’t need protection. They making up their own minds. But first of all, bollguard is not the dominant pest – even for cotton around the world. In Australia it is not.
Interviewer: But what about in India?
Vandana: In India the point is that other pests are starting to build up huge resurgences. There’s even in the United States news that new pests are emerging. We have data that the Bt cotton and Bt crops are starting to affect beneficial species which destroys the balance and therefore creates new problems for pest management. And in South Africa we have been recently the farmers are being asked to plant only 30 percent of their fields under bollguard because 70 percent has to remain under conventional cotton just to manage resistance in bollguard because the data is accepted by Monsanto that there is huge rapid resistance.
Prakash: No, people were saying the same thing four years ago when we started planting cotton in the United States. We have 40 million acres planted under cotton and not a single incident of pest build up come about. And because of the refugee management. And just because the pest is going to build up are we going to deny the Indian farmers a viable opportunity and the chance that they would be able to cut down on their pesticides and make more profit? [Sanjeev: to me this is a valid point – there are always trade-offs in life. ]
Vandana: Why not cut down on the pesticides? When you compare it to ecological organic farming it does not. [Sanjeev: THIS IS THE BIGGEST LOAD OF NONSENSE I’VE HEARD ] And as far as the yields claim of genetic engineering is concerned, around the world and especially US the data on yield, from independent assessments, all data of increases comes from the companies themselves who hold secret trials, never let it be transparent. Today, Indian trials are secret.
Interviewer – One minute, he is working in a university, not a seed company
Vandana: But the interesting thing is that Dr. Prakash’s University is the preferred University by USDA to deploy this technology in the Third World. They have a huge grant to do this job. They are coming out as agents of the USDA.
Prakash: USDA is not a company
Vandana: And just last week USDA was requested by its own Advisory Committee to back out of the patent on the terminator technology which it holds and the USDA turn on the advice of its own Advisory Committee.
Prakash: I am at the committee and that is not true. [Sanjeev: Vandana seems to be putting in a few fake points with extreme confidence] I’m in that Committee so I would know. I’m one of the advisors in that. But secondly, coming back to the access to the technology, why are we trying to be anti-farmers here, trying to deny a technology that can make an overwhelming impact on the lives of the 80% of the people in this country. The science is not the issue here. You can talk about the pest resistance – every scientific body that the looked at this has said that this technology is any good as any other technology
Vandana: We are serving the Indian farmers with information they ask for. Indian farmers are bright, intelligent, organized, they’re the backbone of this country politically and economically, and they don’t need help from either Dr. Prakash on me. [Sanjeev: That’s correct] But basically they asked us for specific information and specific support at specific times and we are there to help. [Sanjeev: I WANT TO KNOW WHETHER VANDANA IS PAID FOR HER SERVICE? IF NOT, WHO PAYS HER?]
Interviewer: What is the specific support?
Vandana: Well, they ask us for information and analysis on GM crops and we do it.
Prakash: And that includes scientific information that they are safe?
Vandana: We get it from around the world, We don’t depend on the Monsantos. There are lots of independent scientists around the world. [Sanjeev. This is NONSENSE. There is only one science.]
Prakash: Who gives these scientists the field information saying that …?
Vandana: Greenpeace does not generate such data. You must understand that. They take action.
Prakash: Every scientist and agency that has looked into the biotechnology, all the most credible international (scientists) including the Indian National Academy of Sciences, and we have one of the best regulatory oversight in this country in India for the release of genetically modified crops – it has gone through that. [Sanjeev: This is even more conclusive today]
Vandana: We have a Supreme Court case because .. the rules under the EPA were violated for the trials. And now the present clearance is given in the year 2000 is for seed bulking. Under a trial you can’t have seed bulking under the trials. You’re supposed to be testing out the seed
Prakash: Sure, we have been growing these crops for past four years in the United States. 25,000 field trials have happened and thousands of xxx. I can give you 50 publications from independent agencies, peer review publications talking about safety of this. And again you should remember the science and the expert judgement behind it – What can go wrong when one gene from a soyabean is taken and turned around and put back.
Interviewer: Can you give an example of where this has gone wrong?
Vandana: Well, yes, two years ago the Roundup reistant cotton, the ball started to fall off.
Prakash: That because of the excess heat in Texas. That would have happened in any case. These are real world situations. In one per cent of the crop. Don’t crops fail here (in India)? [Sanjeev: Vandana’s point is BOGUS]
Vandana: We have the data on Bt toxin impacting non-target species. That data exists in peer-reviewed journal Nature and Science
Prakash: Yes, those the monarch butterfly with a little laboratory study, where they force-fed these butterflies. In the actual fact, in three years butterfly numbers have increased. What about micro-toxin? What about the 30 fold reduction in the cancer -causing toxin that is 30 times less in the Bt corn. Why don’t you talk about it? Look you can keep harping on the little nitty gritty things but when you take the overall that there is a … [Sanjeev: This bad study has been blasted out of the water by Prakash]
Vandana: If there was no concern the nations of the world wouldn’t have negotiated for ten years on the issue of biosafety.
Prakash: But nations of the world are also using this as an instrument for trade protection.
Vandana: What trade protection in the Third World which is not producing any of these seeds at this moment?
Prakash: No, this is a transatlantic war between Europe and America.
Vandana: No, Europeans and the US were not the leaders in the negotiations. It was the Third World. I was present in every Negotiation. I was there in ‘91 when we put in the clauses in the Convention on Biological Diversity. You are making the US and the Europeans the surrogate for every independent assessment and call for safety by citizens and governments of the world.
Prakash: No! We don’t have to. India has one of the strictest and the most scientific biases for GE and we are doing it. [Sanjeev: Once again, Vandana has raised a furphy. The fact is that Indian scientists are fully competent to judge, and they follow internationally agreed protocols]
Vandana: And we are upholding the rules that exists on the paper and the companies …
Prakash: And it is not just the companies, OK? And again when I am talking about biotechnology for the Third World and biotechnology for India it is not just about the companies. We have the scientific progress within the Indian Council of Agricultural Research and universities to bring out the products in the public sector.
Vandana: And it is not the public sector winding itself down?
Interviewer: We are not getting anywhere with this argument. So let me ask you a very simple question: What do you think will happen if the genetically modified crops come to India. Cannot the government protect biodiversity and all these in externalities that you’re talking about quite separately from the choice being made by the farmer?
Vandana: Iin terms of what can happen, what will happen is since biotechnology is embedded in a certain context of socio economic and political control – including when the technology is deployed via the public sector – the costs are not going to go down
Vandana: Profitability is not more, because at this point the crops are being rejected worldwide. Wherever farmers – whether it is United States or Brazil, wherever farmers have planted GE there is no market. Even in India the soya farmers came to us and said please keep India GE free. People are rejecting and if you’re looking for farmer responding to markets, the markets for GE don’t exist.
Prakash: Let the market decide. [Sanjeev: Vandana should let the market decide. Period.]
Vandana: On the second issue the protection of biodiversity is part of what you do with your farming, so it not a separate issue It’s at the heart of how you do your agriculture. And therefore it’s at the heart of how you deploy ….That’s why we are saying make your biosafety regulation stronger, start removing the ignorance you have on ecological impact because it’s tremendous and I’ll give you a very simple example. The trials in India were started with a 2 meters isolation distance so preventing impact. And this was called containment distance. In the USA when they are growing cotton, this is one mile away, in Arizona. There is difference between two metres and one mile for pollination distance. We need to get these basic facts right. Especially in today’s context where organic is the preferred alternative and certification of organic depends on absolutely committing yourself to organic. Organic farmers will lose the option.
Prakash: About profitability, like she said we don’t need Vandana Shiva telling farmers what is profitable and what is not. What is important that the farmers can decide for themselves what is profitable. And again it is not true that the market is rejecting. I believe in the power of market. When you look at the facts, in Brazil this year 1 million acres of this GM crop in soya bean was planted illegally by farmers and they’re not doing it without a reason because there is an increased element of profitability. And if it’s not profitable they are not going to grow. It is as simple as that. Second, organic we can reject it outright. Organics not going to feed the world. We need about six billion cows to put out the manure for organic. There’s always going to be a limited amount of market for organic. Organic brings a higher incidence of e-coli. Outside Bangalore we are growing vegetables in human waste. So it is very easy to sit here and say that we can go organic but in reality what we need is choice for the farmer. If the farmers wants to grow organic let him do so, but it is the scientific-intensive agriculture that has helped prevent millions of acres of forestry land being brought under the plow and then by Green Revolution and by GE revolution we’re going to make sure ….
Time ran so the debate came to an end.
===MY OVERALL COMMENTS==
This is an amazing debate. Vandana repeatedly raises half-truths, in fact blatant lies. What got me thoroughly riled was her insistence that protection of organic farming has to be a consideration for banning GM crops. But GM IS ORGANIC! Brinjals produced by GM are almost pesticide-free, probably use less fertiliser and are entirely natural, made of organic chemicals. Bt proteins are organic and consumed by humans like any other protein. Does she even know what is organic? Does she know what happens during human digestion?
And if “organic” farming means growing plants purely without the support of modern technology, it will not just bankrupt farmers but will kill off one third of the humans alive today, due to the huge reduction in output. Years ago, Norman Borlaug said: “There are 6.6 billion people on the planet today. With organic farming we could only feed 4 billion of them. Which 2 billion would volunteer to die?” Is Vandana volunteering to die? Instead, she wants to kill farmers and the poor.
I went to a farmer in Eastern UP/Haryana border a few months ago and his organic sugarcane was feeble, half the size of normal sugarcane he had planted at the same time. He is not going to make the mistake of going organic (without fertilisers and pesticides) ever again. In fact farmers have a strong incentive to cheat gullible “sophisticated” consumers by using fertilisers and pesticides on the sly and selling normal food as organic. That’s happening all over the West. I don’t mind if gullible people like Vandana want to pay big money for “organic” foods. Price discrimination is good for the market – it also ensures that fools are parted from their money. Good for human evolution. The fact is, however, that organic has not the slightest health benefit over standard technology-based foods. Which university did Vandana go to? (I just looked at her background – she has ZERO training in biology! and yet she’s allowed to debate specialists in biology!)
Anyway, I’m now coming to a much stronger view now, that the anti-GM lobby is deeply ignorant about biology and economics, both essential in order for India to succeed. I’ll start writing a further article about the harm being caused by these ignorant people for my TOI blog.
I think nearly three days have passed when I offered this opportunity to the anti-GM groups to raise their questions. They have none. And this has been witnessed by India’s top journalists first hand. They have no valid reason for their opposition! They oppose for the sake of opposition.
9th June 2019
These are notes based on information from a farmers and scientists Whatsapp group. Currently, I’m engaging with key anti-GM activists and in case I find they are not willing to engage with scientists, then I’ll know that they are a cult and I’ll come down pretty hard on them.
The adoption of Bt cotton in India remained more than 90% of the total cotton area for the last several years with over 7.0 million (70 lakh) farmers cultivating it. If they join together and vouch for its safety and benefits, there can be no greater support than it for Bt crops.
anything negative has no future and die its natural death.. farmers of today are more intelligent and informed than anyother time in the recent past… They know what to do ? and How to do ? they will take care of all
Jairam Ramesh as minister of MoEF announced a moratorium on Brinjal in 2010.. As far as I know there has been no other scientific committee of the govt which has negated the recommendation of GEAC and RCGM on brinjal so far.
Currently, those in favour of adopting science and technology for agriculture, are not usually against anyone adopting organic or natural farming or any other schools of thought. Unfortunately, the latter groups typically ask the govt to stop those who would like to adopt modern technologies. If everyone followed live and let live approach, the conflicts would be greatly reduced, and not just in Agriculture.
We , Shetkari Sanghtana neither pro or anti GM technology. We are fighting for our right to use or not to use GM technology as per our experience in farm , without having any adverse effects on health of farmers, consumers, soil, water and environment. We’re not against any regulatory checks. Bt brinjal is twice approved by competent body GEAC. Still it’s banned for no reason. Same is true about gm gm mustard. Then how do you expect Indian farmers to compete in in International market? Why farmers and experts have no right to say? Why even regulatory trials are opposed?
1. The denial of the approval of the Bt Brinjal was illegal. The complete process as set out by the government was followed. At the last minute it was decided to hold what was called public hearing. This was a tamasha, and it was the same set of activist who undertook the same set of tamasha at the different public hearings in different parts of the country. This created a media hype against the techonology.
2. It was an extra-constitutional organisation called National Advisory Council, which was effectively a super-cabinet, that was active in the illegal denial. The members were supposed to have the ear of Sonia Gandhi, and they used this image to the hilt, to undertake their anti-development activities. (It should be stated here that this same set of people are even today active not just in denying the farmers technology to improve their lives, but they are active in other areas of economy to hold down the growth of India.)
3. Bangladesh used the trial and other data from India to give the approval for Bt Brinjal. It has been some four years since Bt Brinjal is consumed in that country. There have been no reports of any ill-effects on human beings and animals. While there has been documented reports attesting to the benefits for the farmers, the biggest being the elimination of the health problems since the use of pesticides is drastically reduced.
4. Some say that because the technology is legally banned, the use should not be allowed. During the colonial times, agitation for freedom was legally banned. If the argument is to be accepted, then we should call people like Bhagat Singh as criminals and not freedom fighters. Nothing can be absurd.
The effort is to fight the ad-hoc processes which is followed. If it is approved and if still govt is denying it then the only way is to go in the open streets to fight for it. I don’t see any reason why this open defiance against the law is illegal,since the law itself has not been able to hold ground in this country
I remember the anti science foreign funded Green Peace Activists vandalised and uprooted GM Mustard in Punjab which was undergoing duly approved field trials.Similarly these miscreants vandalised crops which were undergoing duly approved field trials in Coimbatore. Can some one get me the link? Why those making hue and cry about unapproved GM Crop being sown and demand arrest when the same activists vandalalised duly approved field trials? Are these anti GMO activists immune from legal action ?
These anti science miscreants through their vandalism which is a crime forced MoEF to impose moratorium on GM Crop trials
It is strange that they make hue and cry when farmers stage a sathyagraha .
This vandalism is the standard operating procedure of these NGOs all over the world.
It is a shame that the then MoEF Jairam Ramesh rewarded the foreign funded Anti farmer NGOs who destroyed the legally conducted GMO Crop trials, for their vandalism with indefinite moratorium on field trials. I wonder whether he signed on the dotted lines of the order typed out by the anti farmer activists.
Green Peace Activists in the guise of farmers destroyed Golden Rice Field trial in Philipines few years ago. The Green Peace can never tolerate anything that is beneficial to the society and good for the nation.