 "Long-term impact of GM mustard on health not studied: Gilles-Éric Seralini")
Gilles-Éric Séralini- a well-known French molecular biologist, political advisor and activist- had written a paper in 2012 showing how the genetically modified corn lead to tumourigenic effects.
The paper, titled ‘Long-term toxicity of a roundup herbicide and roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize’, appeared at the Food and Chemicals Toxicology (FCT) magazine, which is an interantional journal studying the harmful effects of toxic elements on humans and animals.
However, in November 2013, FCT editors retracted the paper saying that study’s results were inconclusive. Later, the paper was republished by the journal. In an exclusive interview with Business Standard, Seralini says that animal testing for GM mustard in India is grossly inadequate and should not be relied upon.
Edited excerpts:
Edited excerpts:
Do you think that the Technical Expert Committee (TEC), appointed under government's Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC), is right in giving a favorable verdict on commercialisation of GM mustard?
In the world in general and after nine years of experience in national and international committees and panels assessing genetically modified organism (GMO) safety, I noticed that the industry does not want to release raw data, thereby not allowing science and its practice to be transparent. For instance, individual blood analyses of rats who have eaten the GM mustard are hidden and confidential. In regular science, it is abnormal, and the GEAC should support this idea rather than studying confidential data. This mustard has been genetically modified to be able to survive with very high levels of the toxic glufosinate-based herbicides in it, which is makes the idea of generating a preception of the product being safe a bad one.
How do you view, the TEC giving a favourable ruling on its use expertise in handling such issues?
If the committees are not infiltrated by conflicts of interests, transparency should be the rule. Otherwise, nobody can trust their opinion.
Also Read
There have been questions regarding trials and tests being conducted before an official nod favouring the GM mustard. Do you think there have been adequate number of tests on GM mustard before a favourable verdict was given by the committee under TEC?
No, there are clear scientific rules in toxicology to study the long-term chronic effects of GM mustard, which will be consumed along with its pesticide residue for a long term. None of these rules have been followed. Three-month-long tests limted to blood analyses of mammals are insufficient. It is dangerous to stop there because you avoid looking for other diseaseas impacting the liver and kidneys, or for tumors that could develop later.
Their are also allegations that use of GM mustard would lead to increased use of herbicide, which would benefit a particular company that is making plant chemicals and is also instrumental in developing the GM mustard seed. Do you think there is any substance to this argument?
The benefit to one company or another is not my area of competence. I am a researcher in the field of GMO and pesticide toxicology, and we have discovered so many endpoints in the body for pesticides, including in glufosinate and its formulants- corrosive pollutants used in its formulations on the GM mustard. They should be avoided in future and modern agriculture. Pesticides affect the entire human body, including the brain, testes, ovaries, breasts, kidneys and liver. These affect the body slowly and gradually. Let's stop bad commercial ideas, even if they use bio-technologies we can be proud of.
According to you, what should be the Indian government's approach on GM mustard and how could farmers gain from it?
The goevernment should develop traditional varieties of Indian mustard that are rich and without pesticides. Thes have been used for medicinal and cooking purposes for centuries. The industrial way of doing it, which is patenting seeds with an overuse of pesticides on the plant is not a good strategy for environment and health.
Do you think large-scale commercialisation of GM mustard would wipe off all indigenous varieties of mustard from the country? If yes how?
This is not an one-off simple mechanism. But the GM pesticide plants are at the top of the global agricultural industry and this diminishes access to ancient traditional varieties, which are very good. They do not serve much to the agricultural workers, except for those who are involved in intensive farming for a short term as they receive subsidies from our income. Not only do pesticides have toxic effects on human health, but their use also hampers the very idea of biodiversity.
Who do you think stands to benefit from GM mustard? Is there a corporate lobby working in its favour?
Of course, from my experience as an expert invarious GM crops, including the GM brinjal in India and Phillipines, the GM wheat and canola in Australia, and the GM rice in China, they (lobby groups) are often hidden in assessment bodies, but GEAC is aware of such pressures much before than I am.
If GM mustard is not allowed to be commercialized in India, how do you think the country can meet its massive demand of edible oil in the coming years?
The oil demand is not so great if you have less animal industrial feeding, with a nutritious food for everybody. Moreover, the GM mustard will not increase production because no gene has been inserted in the plant for that. It is definitely not the future of sustainable growth in agriculture in any continent.
There is a section that feels that India should not oppose GM mustard as it has been developed by an national institute and an Indian scientist. How valid are these arguments?
I am not sure if they (Indian scientists) will never work for patents for developiung glufosinate with the international companies. However, it seems that the safety of all Indians is not that preferable than the profit of a small scientific Indian group.