Bt CROPS IN INDIA-FACING HARSH CRITICISM FROM LAW MAKERS

What has been suspected long ago has turned out to be true going by the recent criticism of GM crops by the Parliamentary Committee on Agriculture in India. In a stinging commentary on the scientific groups that cleared Bt Cotton and Bt Brinjal, the Committee called for a thorough investigation into its action, implying that the decision to give clearance was based on considerations other than interests of the consumer and the farmer. It is rare that law makers in India take so much interest in matters related to common man and it deserves full kudos for this yeoman service to the nation. It may be recalled that Bt Brinjal almost got through the clearance mechanism of the government and would have become a source of danger to the farming community but for sustained hostility shown by many renowned scientists, consumers and social activists. Wisdom did dawn finally on the Environment Minister of GOI to deny permission for cultivation of GM Brinjal after a series of public debates in some of the cities during 2010. Here is a report on the recommendations of the Parliamentary Committee that may have far reaching implications for future efforts by vested interests to introduce GM technology based agricultural crops.  

"In a major setback to the proponents of genetically modified technology in farm crops, the Parliamentary Committee on Agriculture on Thursday asked the government to stop all field trials and sought a bar on GM food crops (such as Bt. brinjal). The committee report, tabled in the Lok Sabha, demanded a "thorough probe" into how permission was given to commercialise Bt. brinjal seed when all evaluation tests were not carried out. It said there were indications of a "collusion of the worst kind from the beginning till the imposition of a moratorium on its commercialisation in February, 2010, by the then Minister for Environment and Forests." The report came a day after Maharashtra cancelled Mahyco's licence to sell its Bt. cotton seeds. It flayed the government for not discussing the issue in Parliament and observed that the Ministry failed in its responsibility by introducing such a policy, ignoring the interests of the 70 per cent small and marginal farmers. The report criticised the composition and regulatory role of the Genetic Engineering Approval (Appraisal) Committee and the Review Committee on Genetic Manipulation (RCGM). According to Committee chairman Basudeb Acharia, there is not a single note of dissent in the report of the 31-member panel, including nine from the Congress and six from the BJP. Observing that GM crops (such as Bt. cotton) benefited the (seed) industry without a "trickle-down" gain to farmers, it recommended that till all concerns were addressed, further research and development should be done only in contained conditions. Citing instances of conflict of interest of various stakeholders, the panel said the government must put in place all regulatory, monitoring, oversight and surveillance systems. Raising the "ethical dimensions" of transgenics in agricultural crops, as well as studies of a long-term environmental and chronic toxicology impact, the panel noted that there were no significant socio-economic benefits to farmers. On the contrary, farmers have incurred huge debts because of this capital-intensive practice. "Today, 93 per cent of the area is under Bt. cotton because no alternative seeds are available," Mr. Acharia said".

It is very true that more than 80% of the food crops in the United States are raised through GM crop seeds and one may argue that nothing untoward has happened so far to the population there. A counter question can logically be raised as to why GM crops have not been approved universally except in the US and a handful of other countries in this Universe, if it is absolutely safe?. The terrible tragedy that is facing the cotton farmers in India is a classical example of government policies imposed on farmers without giving adequate thought to the damage that can be caused in the long term. To day the cotton cultivators are facing penury because the GM version they used did not get them any where and traditional cotton seeds of assured viability are in short supply. Without going into the merits and demerits of GM technology, it is suffice to say that unless GM foods are proved safe conclusively or its potential to increase crop yields significantly at comparable costs confirmed, no country should accept the same unreservedly. The fact that GM seeds are produced by a couple of monolithic transnational agricultural giants, with a track record of deception and arm twisting, makes the matter worse. There must be a global public initiative under the banner of FAO of the UN to look into Genetic Engineering science in toto and the GM seeds, if found advantageous in any way with assured safety, should be made a common property universally accessible, in stead being monopolistic ownership as it exists to day.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

"FRANKENSTEIN" BACTERIA-EMERGING HEALTH SCARE?

Emergence of new strains of pathogens resistant to all known antibiotic drugs is a matter of concern for medical communities all over the world. Detection of this trait in Klebsiella recently in the US is a pointer to the spread of more and more virulent strains of simple bacteria with high resistance to most known drugs. It was in India that the existence of a new set of genes that confer resistance to many drugs was reported and now it is more or less admitted that plasmids from such genes are easily transferred to any bacterium which can make it drug resistant. Such bacterial strains are a potent source of creating many types of Frankenstein disease vectors with no vulnerability to all known treatment regimes known to human beings. Here is a commentary on this new development.  

The bacteria are called carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae or CRE. They're black sheep in a big herd of mostly harmless germs that includes common organisms inhabiting every body's gut, such as the familiar E. coli. In the Rhode Island case, the germ was Klebsiella, which can cause pneumonia and a variety of other infections. The particular trait of these bugs causing most concern is a set of genes, originally seen in New Delhi, that confer resistance to practically all antibiotics. Even more alarming, these New Delhi genes reside on a circular piece of DNA called a plasmid that can be transferred easily to many other kinds of bacteria, rendering them "extensively drug resistant," or XDR. The CDC says only one antibiotic, called colistin, can treat the New Delhi strain.While other forms of CRE have been seen in U.S. hospitals and nursing homes with increasing frequency over the past decade, the New Delhi variant is only beginning to show up.

If such trends continue and the list of drug resistant pathogens grows fast in the coming years the medical community will have no armor to fight them unless more investment flows into research to fight this phenomenon. While hygiene and sanitation play a role in resisting infection, the poor economic and educational standards in many third world countries make it difficult to make the people follow measures like frequent hand washing and other pre-emptive practices. A drastic re-calibration of the primary health centers providing more teeth to the programs concerned with early detection of such debilitating diseases like TB and others will go a long way to arrest their spread on the track. No matter how much public money flows into disease fighting programs in every country, ultimate responsibility falls on the individual to protect himself from such incidences through conscious personal efforts.    

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

  

WHO IS THE OWNER OF THE GARBAGE?-A NEW LEGAL TANGLE

Food industry is considered one of the biggest polluters both solid as well as liquid types and in spite of more and more stringent pollution control measures being promulgated in most countries the problem does not seem to be going away. By far plastics have been blamed as post processing pollutants caused by the consumers after opening and using the contents and if a recent report is to be believed almost 5 million tons of plastic wastes flow into seas and oceans making these water bodies literally toxic to marine creatures supposed to be thriving in this habitat Of course all these "garbage" materials do not originate from food processing but still it is substantial. Beverage industry which manufactures cans sells billions of units of different varieties of drinks, mostly in plastic and glass bottles, metal cans and laminated pouches and boxes, has not bothered to see beyond their factory gates as to what happens to these packaging materials once the contents are consumed by the people. While glass bottlers are recycled for economic reasons, some attempts are being made to recycle plastic bottles also. Billions of cans and bottles which end up in the garbage and public places do not seem to have any "ownership" because the industry from where they originate does not seem to be too much concerned about the nuisance caused by them. But all of a sudden some industry players are claiming that their used containers, cast away so recklessly, should not be used by any one for any purpose. Here is a ring side view of a developing story that pitches world's largest soda maker against an entrepreneur who is trying to use these discarded containers for promoting his home scale soda making gadgets by sending a message that industrial products create so much waste and pollution that can be avoided by making better soda at home..   

"Here, here. Even if, just like in Sodastream's cages, it's not just Coke's bottles and cans that are the problem. You can't just single out Coke for being the problem here, it's an entire culture of disposability. Ultimately it does seem like Coke wants it both ways: Disclaiming responsibility for ownership of cans and bottles when littering is concerned or there is a suggestion, as Lloyd has suggested many-a-time here on TreeHugger, that beverage manufacturers should be legally required to take back their bottles and cans, but then saying they own them, via intellectual property and trademarks, when the same waste product is used against them. Even if the law comes down against Sodastream on this one—and I could see that happening—common sense clearly favors Sodastream, especially as Coke is not being singled out. Sodastream is holding all disposable beverage containers up to the same ridicule here. If Sodastream were saying something positive about all those cans no doubt Coca Cola wouldn't have a problem with it".

The commercial soda manufacturer has taken exception to the use of discarded cans in exhibitions promoting the home soda machine and is threatening to sue him if he does not desist from such practices fearing that it will show commercially available products in bad light. It may be a logical action considering that use of containers in such exhibitions can adversely affect the reputation of the brand assuming that the promotors criticize the products directly for its quality or healthiness. However in this case all that has been done is sending a message that commercial bottling in general produces enormous wastes and pollutants. It will be interesting to watch further development in this evolving battle between the two adversaries which can rightly be called a "David Vs Goliath" war! One is tempted to ask whether if beverage manufacturers claim ownership of used containers scattered all over the world, will they also take up the responsibility for their safe disposal without harming Mother Nature?  It is morally reprehensible for any one to claim ownership of public garbage but shirk the responsibility to clean it up! Dont they know that playing the "dog in the manger" game does not pay or the "having the cake as well as eat it" attitude cannot work always!

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

A FLAWED AGRICULTURAL POLICY-DROUGHT AND CONSEQUENCES

Diversion of valuable food materials that can quench the hunger of millions of people for non-food purpose is nothing but a crime against humanity and this is what is going on in a supposed to be "civilized" country like the US. It is understandable that renewable energy is a priority for the whole world because fossil fuels cannot last for ever and world cannot sustain itself without energy with every human endeavor anchored to energy use. While energy from solar, wind, geothermal, wave and other sources is being tapped with increasing efficiency, there is one area where man is doing harm to himself by using food materials like corn soybean, sugarcane and Palm oil for converting into automobile fuels to extend the supply of fossil fuels. It is understandable if there is a vast surplus production of food that needs to be utilized without wasting them but the present situation indicates that world is short of foods unable to feed millions of people in Africa, Asia and South America. As the North American drought is spreading across the continent mercilessly, the corn and soybean production is plummeting causing world wide concerns regarding its impact on food prices. It is here that the US, a major producer of corn in the world  has to show its statesmanship and magnanimity by temporarily suspending its "corn for ethanol" policy at least for two years. Here is a commentary on this issue with which many dispassionate observers agree.  

"More than one-third of our corn crop is used to feed livestock. Another 13 percent is exported, much of it to feed livestock as well. Another 40 percent is used to produce ethanol. The remainder goes toward food and beverage production. Previous droughts in the Midwest (most recently in 1988) also resulted in higher food prices, but misguided energy policies are magnifying the effects of the current one. Federal renewable-fuel standards require the blending of 13.2 billion gallons of corn ethanol with gasoline this year. This will require 4.7 billion bushels of corn, 40 percent of this year's crop. Other countries seem to have a better grasp of market forces and common sense. Brazil, another large ethanol producer, uses sugar instead of corn to make ethanol. It has flexible policies that allow the market to determine whether sugar should be sold on the sugar market or be converted to fuel. Our government could learn from the Brazilian approach and direct the E.P.A. to waive a portion of the renewable-fuel standards, thereby directing corn back to the marketplace. Under the law, the E.P.A. would first have to determine that the program was causing economic harm. That's a no-brainer, given the effects of sharply higher grain prices that are already rippling through the economy. The price of corn is a critical variable in the world food equation, and food markets are on edge because American corn supplies are plummeting. The combination of the drought and American ethanol policy will lead in many parts of the world to widespread inflation, more hunger, less food security, slower economic growth and political instability, especially in poor countries".

Of course America is a sovereign country with full power to dictate its own policy, deemed to be appropriate to its population but under today's globalized environment can one country decide unilaterally what it will do without bothering to think about the consequences of its action?. If past history is taken into consideration, the US is the biggest food donor in the world and one can assume that same humane consideration will prevail over its response to the new situation emerging in the food front. As a super power with vast technological superiority, this country can always think of other feasible alternatives for fuel production and the non-food biomass conversion to ethanol or high fat algal production can be a feasible alternative if pursued vigorously on a priority basis. The US must provide leadership to the rest of the world in ensuring that every grain of food is conserved and no human being goes to bed with a hungry stomach!

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

THE NEW CHOLESTEROL PHOBIA-WHY THIS AGRESSIVENESS?

The multi billion dollar Statin industry must be elated by the latest recommendations from an expert panel in the US regarding compulsory screening of children for high triglycerides and cholesterol in their blood to detect early signals for development of obesity.  It is true that in the US the single most critical health issue today is the wide scale prevalence of obesity with one third of the population obese and another one third over weight based on the yardstick of Body Mass Index ( BMI). If Statin industry has reached where it is now generating billions of dollars of business, thanks are due to the aggressive program of lipid profiling of the adult population pursued as an annual health check up effort. The present attempt to expand the lipid screening to young kids is a logical extension of the efforts of the industry to ramp up its financial health at the expense of the citizen! The fact that some of the members of the medical panel that made the above recommendations have had financial connection with drug industry raises the needle of suspicion regarding the intent of this exercise. Here is an analysis of this latest development vis-a-vis cholesterol screening in the US.    

"Moreover, the recommendations are based on expert opinion, rather than solid evidence, the researchers said, which is especially problematic since the guidelines' authors disclosed extensive potential conflicts of interest. The guidelines were written by a panel assembled by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute ( NHLBI) and published in Pediatrics, in November 2011. They also were endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics. The guidelines call for universal screening of all 9 to 11-year-old children with a non-fasting lipid panel, and targeted screening of 30 to 40 percent of 2 to 8-year-old and 12 to 16-year old children with two fasting lipid profiles. Previous recommendations called only for children considered at high risk of elevated levels to be screened with a simple non-fasting total cholesterol test. The call for a dramatic increase in lipid screening has the potential to transform millions of healthy children into patients labeled with so-called dyslipidemia, or bad lipid levels in the blood, according to the commentary by Thomas Newman, MD, MPH, Mark Pletcher, MD, MPH and Stephen Hulley, MD, MPH, of the UCSF Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics and e-published on July 23 in Pediatrics. "The panel made no attempt to estimate the magnitude of the health benefits or harms of attaching this diagnosis at this young age," said Newman. "They acknowledged that costs are important, but then went ahead and made their recommendations without estimating what the cost would be. And it could be billions of dollars." Some of the push to do more screening comes from concern about the obesity epidemic in U.S. children. But this concern should not lead to more laboratory testing, said Newman. "You don't need a blood test to tell who needs to lose weight. And recommending a healthier diet and exercise is something doctors can do for everybody, not just overweight kids," he said. The requirement of two fasting lipid panels in 30 to 40 percent of all 2 to 8-year olds and 12 to 16 -year- olds represents a particular burden to families, he said."

Cholesterol is considered a villain in most heart disease and build up of this chemical in the arteries leading to atherosclerosis is considered a direct consequence of reckless eating habits evolved in wealthy countries like the US. Vast agriculture subsidies and skewed government food policies have spawned a whole generation of cheap but highly unhealthy foods to which the citizens have ready access while healthy foods like fluid milk and fruits and vegetables are priced out of the reach of the common man. Over eating of meat and related products rich in cholesterol practically every day makes the cholesterol induced "crisis" a formidable one to manage. Recent attempts by the government, though belatedly and half-heartedly to make one day a weak meat free was sabotaged by the meat industry fearing a slide down of its fortunes. The obsession with pre-empting possible diseases during early childhood which is characteristic of the American system seems to have driven the latest proposal of lipid screening for children. But the over weight does not develop over night and those with a tendency with increased BMI only need to be tested sparing most kids the trauma of lipid profiling process unnecessarily. One can only hope that better sense will prevail with the US government eventually after considering the pros and cons of implementing the latest recommendations.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

MEAT PRODUCTS AND ANTIBIOTICS-THE LABELING GAME!

Increased emergence of bugs resistant to some of the commonly used antibiotics for treatment of serious diseases in human beings is a cause for alarm globally. While part of the problem can be attributed to the indiscriminate prescription by physicians of all hues and colors to treat any and every fever with strongest antibiotics available in the market, meat industry has to bear the major burden for such a situation because of large scale use (or mis-use?) of antibiotics in raising meat animals. It is scandalous that more than 80% of the antibiotics produced in the US goes for feeding meat animals, under the pretext that meat so produced will be safer from pathogens like Salmonella, virulent E.coli and others. However a reality check shows that antibiotics are used to improve the production economics as the animals grow faster using less and less feed inputs. The hapless consumer, in spite of his yearnings to consume antibiotic free meat products does not have ready access to such products because most of the meat produced comes from farms which liberally use antibiotics in their day to day operations. Here is a take on this vexatious issue that seems to be caught between the powerful meat lobby and aggressive consumer activists organizations.  

"Currently, there is no labeling standards for drug free meat products, but until there is, the researchers say, foods labeled "organic" are, by definition, required to be antibiotic-free. In addition, they say consumers can generally rely on labels that explicitly say "no antibiotics," but should be wary of terms like "natural," "antibiotic-free," "no antibiotic residues" and "no antibiotic growth promotants," as these terms can be misleading. But a coalition of agricultural advocacy organizations – including the American Meat Institute, the National Cattleman's Beef Association, the National Chicken Council, the National Pork Producers Council and the National Turkey Federation -  do not agree that there is a problem. "The research is clear that the contribution of using antibiotics in food-animal production to the human burden of antibiotic resistance is quite small, if it exists at all," the coalition said in a letter to Congress in June".

It is a shame that the government in the world's most powerful country, viz the US is unable to come to the rescue of its citizens through restraining policies that will discourage the meat industry from using antibiotics recklessly. Adding insult to injury, the powerful meat lobby does not concede the point that its large scale use of antibiotics is responsible for the drug resistance encountered in may pathogen infections, in spite of massive scientific evidence to the contrary! What prevents the US authorities in insisting on compulsory labeling of antibiotic treated meat is indeed baffling, the only charitable interpretation being its vulnerability to the lobbying power of the meat industry. Though consumers have an alternative in organic meats, the fact that they cost heavily compared to normal meat excludes many of them with limited income from patronizing such expensive products. Access to safe food is a fundamental human right and no government can shirk its responsibility in ensuring the same, no matter how powerful the food industry may be!    

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

MICROSOFT AND FOOD-A QUESTIONABLE INVESTMENT

No one disputes that this Planet is heading for difficult days in a few years' time if food production does not keep pace with the expanding population. The debate revolves around the means required to achieve quantum jump in food production. Options like expanding the area of cultivation, increasing productivity through better inputs to agriculture and reducing wastage are good to talk about but are mired in uncertainties and road blocks which are difficult to be overcome easily. Genetically engineered agricultural crops are touted as an answer to the vexing food problem but unfortunately the GM technology has not been able to convince majority of scientists that it is a safe bet beyond a shade of doubt regarding its credentials to achieve perceptible yield increase. Another dimension to this problem is the inability of many poor farmers to cultivate available land due to economic limitations to harness the essential inputs to agriculture. Recent entry of large charitable organizations into efforts to generate technologies that can work efficiently without vital inputs like nitrogen fertilizers and water is a welcome development. Here is a report about such an effort by one such organization which wants to evolve cereal plants with an ability, like leguminous plants, to fix atmospheric nitrogen and self generate the required natural fertilizer.

"It is one of the largest single investments into GM in the UK and will be used to cultivate corn, wheat and rice that need little or no fertiliser.  It comes at a time when bio-tech researchers are trying to allay public fears over genetic modification. The work at the John Innes Centre in Norwich is hoped to benefit African farmers who cannot afford fertiliser. Agricultural fertiliser is important for crop production across the globe. But the many of the poorest farmers cannot afford fertiliser - and it is responsible for large greenhouse gas emissions. The John Innes Centre is trying to engineer cereal crops that could get nitrogen from the air - as peas and beans do - rather than needing chemical ammonia spread on fields. If successful, it is hoped the project could revolutionise agriculture and, in particular, help struggling maize farmers in sub-Saharan Africa - something the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is keen to do. 'Major problems' Professor Giles Oldroyd from the John Innes Centre, who is leading the team, said the project was vital for poorer producers and could have a "huge impact" on global agriculture. "We believe if we can get nitrogen fixing cereals we can deliver much higher yields to farmers in Africa and allow them to grow enough food for themselves." However, opponents of GM crops say results will not be achieved for decades at best, and global food shortages could be addressed now through improving distribution and cutting waste. Pete Riley, campaign director of the group GM Freeze, said there was a realisation by many farmers across the world that "GM is failing to deliver". "If you look in America, yields haven't increased by any significant amount and often go down," he said. He added: "Now we're seeing real, major problems for farmers in terms of weeds that are resistant to the herbicides which GM crops have been modified to tolerate."

While the gesture from organizations like the one above is worthy of appreciation, use of the funds exclusively to go in for genetic modification to alter the basic nature of cereal plants and their genetic signature may invite criticism from those having severe reservations regarding safety of GM crops. With most consumers shunning GM foods, if offered as a choice, how far the newly engineered crops will find acceptance is a question that begs for an answer. Alternate options like traditional hybridization and other possible techniques should not be ignored because development of new strains takes long years to fructify and world should have as many options as possible when the crunch comes.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com