Dr. Bhargava’s tough stance against GM crops is supported by other prominent scientists around the world. In very clear words, a group of distinguished scientists organized by an independent scientific group said:
“GM crops have not been proven safe. Instead, enough evidence has emerged to raise serious safety concerns. If ignored, it could cause irreversible damage to health and the environment. It is time to firmly reject GM crops.”
biochemical weapon
The Independent Scientific Panel (ISP) is a group of scientists from many disciplines and countries working to advance science for the public good. in the title “The case for a GMO-free sustainable world‘ The ISP further stated:
“By far, the most insidious dangers of genetic engineering are inherent in the process itself, which greatly increases the scope and likelihood of horizontal gene transfer and recombination, which are the primary pathways for producing the viruses and bacteria that drive disease epidemics.”
this is in Killer mouse virus created by ‘accident’ in 2001 During a seemingly innocent genetic engineering experiment.
New technologies such as DNA shuffling allow geneticists to create them in minutes in the lab. This opens up the possibility of unleashing millions of recombinant viruses that never existed in billions of years of evolution.
be rejected
Disease-causing viruses and bacteria and their genetic material are the primary materials and tools for genetic engineering, as is the intentional creation of biological weapons.
Several scientists involved in studying the significance and impact of genetic engineering came together at the International Conference on Redefining Life Sciences in Penang, Malaysia. Third World Network. They issued a statement (Penang Statement, or PS) questioning the scientific basis of genetic engineering.
“New biotechnologies based on genetic engineering assume that each specific trait of an organism is encoded in one or several specific stable genes, and thus the transfer of these genes results in the transfer of discrete traits,” the statement said.
“This extreme form of gene reductionism has been rejected by most biologists and many other members of the intellectual community. Mainly because it fails to take into account the complex interactions of genes with their cells and the external environment in which they engage. All characteristic developing.
risk
“Therefore, in a large number of cases, the consequences of transferring genes from one organism to another cannot be predicted,” the report continued.
“The limited ability to transfer identifiable molecular features between organisms by genetic engineering does not constitute proof of any comprehensive or reliable system for predicting all the significant effects of transposable genes.”
The world is increasingly concerned about the serious health risks and many other adverse effects of genetically modified crops and GMOs. Yet again, multibillion-dollar GM multinationals are trying to spark confusion and uncertainty to avoid regulation.
Their claim that gene-edited crops should not be subject to the same restrictions as genetically modified crops is an attempt to find a legal loophole to prevent the risks and dangers associated with GMOs.
mutagenesis
In July 2018, the European Supreme Court ruled that gene-edited crops use CRISPR is subject to the same strict rules and restrictions as GMOs.
The court ruled: “Considering that the risks associated with the use of these new mutagenesis techniques may prove to be similar to those arising from the production and release of genetically modified organisms through transgenesis, as the direct modification of an organism’s genetic material through mutagenesis.
“These new technologies enable the introduction of genetically modified varieties at a rate that is completely different from the rate at which traditional mutagenesis methods are applied.
“The European Commission and European governments must now ensure that all new GMOs are fully tested and labelled, and that any field trials must comply with GMO rules.”
Unlawful
Dr. Janet Cotter and Dr. R. Steinbrecher reviewed the legal and scientific facts surrounding this debate and concluded:
“It’s clear that gene-edited crops and animals need to be treated as GMOs, just like GM crops are currently.”
With gene editing, researchers can add, delete or modify parts of an organism’s genome. The court decision is welcome. Franziska Achterberg, Greenpeace EU Food Policy Director, said:
“The release of these new GMOs into the environment without proper safety measures is illegal and irresponsible, especially given the potential for unintended side effects of gene editing.”
Despite growing awareness of the risks of gene-edited crops, powerful lobbyists in India have accelerated attempts to gain backdoor access to genetically modified crops through gene editing.
Their attempt appeared to be successful, as the central government and the environment ministry issued a notice on March 30 exempting some gene-edited crops and organisms from earlier rules for genetically modified crops.
future
SND1 and SND2 genome editing products, which do not contain exogenously introduced DNA, will not be subject to the 1988-89 GMO Rules and will be excluded from the existing approval process.
Those involved in protecting Indian agriculture from GM crops have said the recent changes are risky and unscientific and should be challenged by law.
Another view is that the existing 1988 rules should actually be strengthened to make such arbitrary changes impossible in the future.
Without sound regulations to assess and guard against the potential risks of gene-manipulation techniques, the government’s decision to relax gene-editing laws will only further cement its role as a major driver of biodiversity loss and health problems.
this author
Bharat Dogra is the honorary convenor and activist of Save Earth Now. His recent books include Man over Machine (Gandhi Thought for Our Time) and India’s Pursuit of Sustainable Agriculture and Healthy Food.
