In This
Issue:
DATELINE
INDIA:
International
Conference on Agricultural Biotechnology Ushering in the Second
Green Revolution, New Delhi, India, August 10-13, 2004
INDIAN GOVT TO CREATE ENABLING ENVIRON FOR AGRI-BIOTECH
“My Ministry would do its best to create an enabling environment
for biotechnology to flourish in our country”, said Science
and Technology Minister Sh Kapil Sibal, during his inaugural speech
at the International Conference on Agricultural Biotechnology Ushering
in the Second Green Revolution held at the Federation House, Indian
Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) in New Delhi, India.
Sponsored by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech
Applications (ISAAA), FICCI, and the MS Swaminathan Agricultural
Research Foundation, the three-day conference attracted over 200
local and international participants.
The Minister explained that India has been undergoing
a paradigm shift in terms of policy, regulatory as well as trade
regimes. “New
technologies can only flourish under a futuristic tripartite arrangement
among research and development (R&D) institutions, industry
and regulatory bodies,” he said. However, he did stress that
that all these efforts would fail should the consumers’ interest
not be taken into consideration.
The advancement in biotechnology, the Minister
added, will entail public private collaboration at two levels.
First, a mechanism
needs to be made to facilitate R&D in biotech between publicly
funded research institutions and industry. Secondly, a system has
to be in place to transfer crop biotechnologies generated by publicly
funded R&D institutions in industry. The Secretary emphasized
that government support and approval would complete the partnership.
Sh Kapil Sibal likewise announced that by January
2005 a single window regulatory system will be in place to facilitate
approval
or rejection of biotech-derived products to bring in additional
choices for the farmers as soon as possible. This system must be
transparent in order to gain the confidence and trust of consumers.
He concluded by saying that India is now moving towards “a
collaboration with nature” and it was important the science
community take on this challenge to make this a reality.
Aside from Minister Kapil Sibal, the Secretary
of the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, Radha Singh,
also expressed
support for agricultural biotechnology and stressed “the
moral imperative of making genetically modified crops available
to small scale farmers who need them the most.” She noted
that India should consider all possible interventions and that
the country was at the moment streamlining procedures for biotechnology
so it can be used as an instrument to contribute to increased food
production particularly in agricultural crops such as rice, wheat,
oil seeds and pulses.
INTER’L
SPEAKERS STRESS POSITIVE EXPERIENCES WITH GM CROPS The global experiences of using genetically modified (GM) crops
have demonstrated the benefits that countries can reap from using
the technology. This was the consensus of international speakers
including Dr. Clive James, chair of the International Service for
the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), Eduardo Trigo
of Argentina, and Anderson Gomes of Brazil.
Global Status of GM Crops
Clive James stressed that a crop improvement strategy that integrates
conventional and biotechnology/GM crop approaches to optimize productivity
along with population control and improved food distribution systems
can contribute to food, feed and fiber security. He said that 18
countries have adopted biotech crops which are now planted on 67.7
million hectares. This is an increase in 15 percent over 2002 figures.
Among the attributes of Bt biotech crops for instance, have been
the effective control of targeted insect pests, less use and exposure
to insecticides, higher yields, better health from reduced mycotoxins
in corn, and higher economic returns to more than six million farmers.
Argentina Experience
Eduardo
Trigo, director of Grupo CEO in Buenos Aires, Argentina,
narrated his country’s dramatic increase in grain production
which saw an increase from 28 million tons in 1988/89 to over 75
million tons in 2002/03. Among other factors, “probably one
of the most important was the introduction of new GM technologies,
particularly herbicide-tolerant soybeans”. Trigo reported
on the economic benefits that accrued to producers and other
participating actors as well as social and environmental impacts
associated with
the introduction of the technology. He highlighted the role of
institutional factors such as the early availability of a reliable
biosafety mechanism and a special intellectual property rights
situation that favored the introduction of new technologies.
However, he mentioned that developments as the Cartagena Protocol,
and labeling
and traceability concerns point to a more complex market situation
and now demands a different approach for the domestic handling
of this innovation. Argentina, he concluded, needs to undertake
a much more proactive policy path.
Brazil Experience
Another
positive experience was discussed by Anderson Gomes,
director of Celeres, a consulting company in Minas Gerais,
Brazil. He noted
that “the continuous development of biotechnology in Brazil
is seen an important tool in maintaining its competitiveness in
grain, fibers, and meat production over the next years. Besides
soy production, there is a great expectation … for biotechnology
in Brazilian agriculture to improve the indicators in corn and
cotton production beside other import food such as fruits and edible
beans.” Gomes said that Brazilian farmers quickly adopted
herbicide tolerant soybean for example, and is now planted on
over 18.6 million hectares. Nevertheless, he highlighted the
need for
legislative measures that would provide a positive environment
for GM technologies so that they would guarantee that direct
benefits would spread not only to farmers but to the rest of
society as
well. Briefs on the Argentinean and Brazilian experiences will soon
be made available online at http://www.isaaa.org/kc.
Knowledge Sharing Initiative in India During the same conference, Dr. Clive James, took
the opportunity to formally launch ISAAA’s knowledge sharing initiative in
India. An ISAAA South Asia office, co-hosted by the International
Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), is
now part of the network of Biotechnology Information Centers located
in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. James mentioned that the initiative
in India would allow the country to share with the rest of the
world its experiences in agricultural biotechnology. In response,
Dr. William Dar, ICRISAT director general, said that “partnership
is the key strategy to cover more ground in efforts to let India
benefit first from all the technologies that are becoming available
to improve the quality of life”. Dr. Mangla Rai, director
general of the Indian Council for Agricultural Research, forged
the partnership by assuring that the Indian government would fully
support the knowledge initiative in India.
PARTNERSHIPS KEY TO DELIVER BIOTECH BENEFITS TO AGRICULTURE Without formal, dynamic, and synergistic interfaces between the
public and private sectors, much of the benefits of crop biotechnology
will not reach those who need them most. The sharing of information
and experiences across sectors is crucial to facilitate the flow
and process that technologies undergo from the laboratory to the
farm. This was the common view of speakers during the discussion
on technology transfer of agri-biotechnology.
The delivery of Bt cotton into farmers’ hands would never
have been possible without collaboration between the public and
private sectors. This was clearly highlighted by representatives
from the two leading seed companies responsible for developing
Bt cotton, Sh Raju Barwale and Sh Ramasami of Mahyco and Rasi Seeds,
respectively. Bt cotton was a “national collaboration but
implemented by the private sector,” involving many local
institutions at various stages of the process”, according
to Sh Raju Barwale of Mahyco.
This
sentiment was shared by other speakers in the session. Dr S.
Nagarajan, Director of the Indian Agriculture
Research Institute
stressed that a better working relationship with the private sector
is needed if biotech products are ever to reach the market. This
involves “changing the mindset for research and credit sharing;
a reorientation of priorities; and a strong networking mechanism
to share genetic resources.” Similar lessons were also shared
by Dr Randy Hautea, global coordinator of the International Service
for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, who described
the papaya network project, a collaborative endeavor of five Southeast
Asian countries in Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand,
and Vietnam. ISAAA served as a broker in getting the technology
developed by a private sector partner to these countries and in
the process developing in-country capability to address other issues
such as regulations, biosafety, and intellectual property rights.
Dr. Purvi Mehta Bhatt of Science Aschram summed
up the discussion by posing the challenge of “bringing the technology to where
it belongs”. This can only be done, she said, by cultivating
meaningful relationships among various stakeholders.
BT COTTON HAS FUTURE IN INDIA, SAYS AGRIC COMMISSIONER Bt cotton in India is all set on a growth path with 1.3 million
acres to be planted this year. It is already accounting for 40
percent of the total hybrid market value in the country.
Dr. CD Mayee, Agricultural Commissioner, Government of India, gave
this optimistic view in his presentation on the status of Bt cotton
and future of biotechnology in India.
Mayee noted that India has presently the highest
acreage in cotton, approximately 24 percent in the world. Ironically,
the country
has the lowest yield in the world. The challenge for India, Mayee
said was “to increase competitiveness and overcome key constraints
like bollworm losses, dependence on rain, historical indebtedness
among farmers, and unorganized farming and lack of education.” Hence,
the need to explore other options particularly in the use of new
varieties is necessary.
The agricultural commissioner gave the example of the experience
of the State of Madhya Pradesh where farmers grew 10 times more
Bt cotton in 2003 and six times more in 2004. A survey revealed
that less than 2 percent of farmers who were aware of the technology
said they would not try Bt cotton.
Since 80 percent of the Bt cotton growers were
planting the crop for the first time, Mayee opined that their
experience would be
the key for growth in 2005. He also stressed the need to address
crop performance issues particularly as it relates to agronomic
constraints as well as issues related to high expectations of a
crop’s potential, price and institutional support mechanisms.
Mayee also added that to meet market demand, it was necessary to
aim for the approval of more and new hybrids.
PREDICTIVE REGULATORY SYSTEM TO ASSURE FOOD SAFETY OF GMF
Various
international documents are now available to provide a harmonized
framework to assess the safety of genetically
modified
food (GMF). However, it is important that each information or data
requirement submitted to food safety assessment should be biologically
significant or that they address specific safety issues. Only then
can a “decision to approve or not approve a product be made
based on sound science within a transparent, efficient and responsive
regulatory environment while still assuring food, feed and environmental
safety.” Dr. Morven McLean of Agbios, Canada stressed this
point during her talk on food safety during the international conference
on agricultural biotechnology organized by FICCI in New Delhi,
India. It is a strong regulatory framework in a country,
which would protect people’s health and safety. McLean
clarified that the framework must provide a predictive environment
for industry,
and build public confidence. A predictive regulatory system is
one that is clear and defines the different activities and division
of responsibilities among those involved in the process of evaluation.
As such however, it requires developing systematic approaches to
evaluation.
In the same forum, Dr. V. Prakash, Director of the Central Food
Technological Research Institute (CFTRI) in Mysore, Karnataka,
India, said that a national database on GM foods is needed to adequately
address food safety issues. At present, CFTRI is the only agency
in India, which is the reference food analysis center for detection
of GM in processed foods.
For more information about the international conference, email
bhagirath@ficci.com or knowledge.center@isaaa.org.
| 
