Current Science

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

When Biotechnologists Lack Objectivity


Affiliations
1 Center for the Analysis of Sustainable Agricultural System, Kensington CA, United States
2 Sunray Harvesters, Mhow 453 441, India
 

We dismiss Deepak Pental’s strong biased criticisms of P. C. Kesavan and M. S. Swaminathan; evaluate the nature of disagreements of the GMO problem, and review two major controversies concerning GMO’s in India: Bt cotton and the proposed commercialization of GMO herbicide-tolerant (HT) mustards. The data show that the very modest gains in cotton yields were due to increased fertilizer use and not Bt cotton adoption, and that better non-GMO options are available. Using data made available through Right to Information Act, we show that the process of biosafety testing of GMO mustard DMH 11 and its HT parents was flawed and that no yield gains accrued compared to the available non-GMO hybrid DMH-1.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Pental, D., Curr. Sci., 2019, 117(6), 932– 939; doi:10.18520/cs/v117/i6/932-939.

  • Swaminathan, M. S. and Kesavan, P. C., Curr. Sci., 2018, 114, 1585–1586.

  • Carson, R., Silent Spring, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA, USA, 1962, p. 368.

  • Cohn, B. A., La Merrill, M., Krigbaum, N. Y., Yeh, G., Park, J.-S., Zimmermann, L. and Cirillo, P. M., J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., 2015, 100(8), 2865–2872; https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2015-1841.

  • Duforestel, M. et al., Front. Genet., 2019; https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2019.00885 6. Prof. David Schubert: Cell Biologist, Salk Institute, letter dated 23 January 2014 (in evidence to the Supreme Court in PIL 260 of 2005).

  • Benbrook, C. M., Environ. Sci. Eur., 2016, 28(1), 3. Feb 2. doi:10.1186/ s12302-016-0070-0

  • Nandula, V. K., Glyphosate Resistance in Crops and Weeds: History, Development and Management, John Wiley, NJ, USA, 2010, p. 321.

  • Relyea, R. A. and Jones, D. K., Environ. Toxicol. Chem., 2009, 28, 2004–2008.

  • Mertens, M., Höss, S., Neumann, G., Afzal, J. and Reichenbecher, W., Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., 2018, 25, 5298; https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-1080-1; see Ritterman Jeff, Compilation of studies showing harm from glyphosate, 23 February 2015 (Truthout); http://www.truthout.org/news/item/29244-will-richmond-reject-roundup-the-case-for-banning-glyphosate

  • Quist, D. and Chapela, I., Nature, 2001, 414, 541–543.

  • Piñeyro-Nelson, A. et al., Mol. Ecol., 2009, 18, 750–761.

  • Taleb, N. N., Read, R., Douady, R., Norman, J. and Bar-Yam, Y., Extreme Risk Initiative – NYU School of Engineering Working Paper Series, 2014; arxiv:1410.5787v1 [q-fin.GN].

  • The Cartagena Protocol and Convention of Biological Diversity, Preamble to the CBD and Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration, 1992.

  • Kurenbach, B., Marjoshi, D., AmábileCuevas, C. F., Ferguson, G. C., Godsoe, W., Gibson, P. and Heinemann, J. A., mBio, 2015, 6(2), e00009-15; doi:10.1128/mBio.00009-15.

  • Heinemann, J. A., Agapito-Tenfen, S. Z. and Carman, J. A., Environ. Int., 2013, 55, 43–55.

  • Broderick, N. A., Raffa, K. F. and Handelsman, Jo., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 2006, 103(41), 15196–15199; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0604865103.

  • www.themonitor.com (accessed on 20 February 2011).

  • Gutierrez, A. P., Curr. Sci., 2018, 115, 2206–2210; doi:10.18520/cs/v115/i12/2206-2210.

  • Beckert, S., Empire of Cotton: A Global History, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, USA, 2014.

  • Basu, A. K. and Paroda, R. S., Hybrid Cotton in India: A Success Story, AsiaPacific Association of Agricultural Research Institutions, FAO Regional Office for Asia & the Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand, 1995.

  • Kranthi, K. R., Bt Cotton: Questions and Answers, Indian Society for Cotton Improvement, Mumbai, 2012; http://www.cicr.org.in/pdf/Bt_book_Kranthi.pdf 23. van den Bosch, R., The Pesticide Conspiracy, University of California Press, Berkeley, USA, 1978.

  • Naik, V. C., Kumbhare, S., Kranthi, S., Satija, U. and Kranthi, K. R., Pest Manage. Sci., 2018; doi:10.1002/ps.5038.

  • Kranthi, K. R., Cotton Stat. News, 2016, 39, 1–6; http://www.cicr.org.in/pdf/Kranthi_art/Fertilizers_and_Bt.pdf (accessed on 10 December 2018).

  • Kranthi, K. R., Cotton Statistics News, 16 December 2014.

  • Venugopalan, M. V., Prakash, A. H., Kranthi, K. R., Deshmukh, R., Yadav, M. S. and Tandulkar, N. R., In World Cotton Research Conference (eds Kranthi, K. R. et al.), International Cotton Advisory Committee, Mumbai, 2011, pp. 341–346.

  • Kannuri, N. K. and Jadhav, S., Anthropol. Med., 2018, 25, 121–140; doi:10.1080/13648470.2017.1317398.

  • Gutierrez, A. P., Ponti, L., Herren, H. R., Baumgärtner, J. U. and Kenmore, P. E., Environ. Sci. Eur., 2015, 27(12), 17; doi:10.1186/s12302-015-0043-8

  • https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/agriculture/scientist-who-developed-gm-mustard-hopeful-of-governments-nod/articleshow/59008785.cms (accessed on 28 October 2019).

  • Bhargava, P. M., Econ. Polit. Wkly, 2016, 1(44–45), 40–43.

  • Reply of the Union of India @ Para 25 states: ‘Thus, according to records, the R&D and technology development as well as biosafety assessment has been fully funded by the public sector and there are no commercial considerations involved’; https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/agriculture/scientist-who-developed-gm-mustard-hopeful-of-governments-nod/articleshow/59008785.cms

  • Dr Pushpa M. Bhargava, Letter to the Chief Justice of India, 9 February 2016 in Writ Petition (Civil) 260 of 2005, Aruna Rodrigues vs Union of India.

  • Prof. Jack Heinemann’s riposte: Statement for the SC of 16 August 2017, @ Annexure 3 of Petitioner’s Rejoinder of Sept 2017.

  • Sodhi, Y. S. et al., Theor. Appl. Genet., 2006, 114, 93–99; doi:10.1007/s00122006-0413-0.

  • Report on biosafety research level-I (BRL-I) second year trials conducted on transgenic Brassica juncea submitted to the RCGM: Annexure M7 of Supreme Court Submission October 2016 (obtained under the Right to Information Act).

  • Report by D. Pental on assessment of food and environmental safety. 2016, Table 7.3 p. 105 (Supreme Court Ref @ Annexure Q1 of Petitioners’ Rejoinder of November 2016).

  • Reply of the Union of India in IA 47 @ Pr. 88 at pg. 55–56: ‘No such claim has been made in any of the submitted documents that DMH 11 out-performs non-GMO hybrids’.


Abstract Views: 507

PDF Views: 135




  • When Biotechnologists Lack Objectivity

Abstract Views: 507  |  PDF Views: 135

Authors

Andrew Paul Gutierrez
Center for the Analysis of Sustainable Agricultural System, Kensington CA, United States
Peter E. Kenmore
Center for the Analysis of Sustainable Agricultural System, Kensington CA, United States
Aruna Rodrigues
Sunray Harvesters, Mhow 453 441, India

Abstract


We dismiss Deepak Pental’s strong biased criticisms of P. C. Kesavan and M. S. Swaminathan; evaluate the nature of disagreements of the GMO problem, and review two major controversies concerning GMO’s in India: Bt cotton and the proposed commercialization of GMO herbicide-tolerant (HT) mustards. The data show that the very modest gains in cotton yields were due to increased fertilizer use and not Bt cotton adoption, and that better non-GMO options are available. Using data made available through Right to Information Act, we show that the process of biosafety testing of GMO mustard DMH 11 and its HT parents was flawed and that no yield gains accrued compared to the available non-GMO hybrid DMH-1.

References





DOI: https://doi.org/10.18520/cs%2Fv117%2Fi9%2F1422-1429