Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 19 October 2009 | Nature 461, 1041 (2009) | doi:10.1038/4611041a
News
Transgenic aubergines put on ice
Indian minister delays approval of GM crop.
Stiff opposition from activists has persuaded the Indian government to put off commercial release of the country's first genetically modified (GM) food crop, despite clearance from the nation's top biotechnology regulator.
The 14 October ruling by the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) granted permission for Indian farmers to grow a transgenic version of aubergine, or brinjal, that is insect-resistant.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email webadmin@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
It says in the article:
"show that Bt brinjal is "absolutely safe" to eat".
This was shown through animal studies. Do these animals include insects?
Lets assume that this variety shows more viability than native (or the usual) varieties. It replaces all the natural types – how do the insects survive? Many insects are essential for nature, even for the economy.
Right decision by GOI.No need to be in hurry in such sensitive, important issue.Even if GOI decides to go ahead with transgenic,only those developed in govt lab i.e. ICAR,CSIR etc using our own bt genes should be taken in to account in oder to keep Indian farmers safe from trap of MNCs.
A good decision of Ramesh.
Monsanto has a bad history already in introducing GM products, by bribing and falsifying research.
You cannot trust this multinational, since it's only goal is to earn much money..
The displacement of natural species by GM replacements is a matter of great concern (like natural rape in the US).
Natural variation is lost, and the possibility to create new products from older disappears.
Farmers become dependent and have to pay more.
Many consequences for species are unknown.
Much more can be told about GM products, I refer to Greenpeace for more information.
GEAC approves only on technical grounds. If GEAC is satisfied, then the issue has been accepted technically. Other issues like resistance from anti GM groups will only delay the use of the Bt brinjal by the farmers.
Please notice that I add this comment on my own behalf.
In the past I have been working for a company which was developing transgenic crops (not Monsanto)and we have been collaborating with an indian company (ProAgro) in a joint venture on the development of transgenic crops. We were also involved in the development of Bt-eggplant,as well as Bt tomatoes and cabbages.
Our company was well aware of safety issues and we were involved (together with a number of academic institutions and governemental labs) in a European project (in the frame of the Flair program), analysing the safety of bt tomatoes. Both the safety of the protein and the crop itself were analysed. No adversary effects could be detected neither in physiological analysis or in feeding studies.
I would like to make a few remarks (in part based on previous comments)
During our collaboration in India I have been visiting vegetable fields several times and was able to notice the severe damage caused by caterpillars especially to eggplant, although plants were treated heavily with insecticides. Once the caterpillar is inside the fruit it is very difficult to touch it with chemicals especially keeping in mind that this fruit will be consumed shortly after by humans. In addition damaged fruits are further deteriorated by bacteria and fungi. A bt brinjal could be really a solution, offering a healthy crop to the consumer.
Biodiversity: As far as I know the eggplant is a cultivated crop in which a large number of varieties exist and are desirable. Introducing the insect resistance gene will not reduce the offer as it will be bred into the different varieties.
Insects: Of course the bt eggplant is aimed to be lethal to certain types of isects, however specificity of bt proteins exceeds by far the specificity of most chemical insecticides. The impact of the bt crop (and related changes in insecttreatments) needs analysis and possibly changes in agricultural practice will be needed upon introduction of these crops.
Presence of the Km resistance gene: The presence of this gene is not related to the bt trait itself, but the gene is often (but not always) used as a tool in the selection of the transgenic plant. Alternative selective markers exist but are sometimes more difficult to use. In addition it was never shown that the presence and expression of this gene was causing adverse effects.
Development of transgenic crops will profit to large multinational companies: this is true as they are unfortunatally the only (nongovernamental) organisations which are able to invest sufficiently in this technology and the registration of its products.
Arlette Reynaerts
Congratulations to Jairam Ramesh for having the courage to say "No!" to Monsanto. Research throughout Europe has shown that animals fed Monsanto GMO crops in their daily diets develop kidneys, livers and spleens up to THREE TIMES THE SIZE of normal – these are the organs directly responsible for processing toxins.
Additionally, emerging science from many non-U.S. countries is showing dramatic reductions in reproductive capabilities in the 2nd and 3rd generations from those animals being fed GMO crops.
WHERE are the INDEPENDENT THINKING scientists in the United States and elsewhere with regards to GMO technology? How can you possibly test anything and say it is SAFE when it is only tested on the one generation of consumption laboratory animals? These proteins affect/effect multiple systems and Monsanto nor the approval bodies of various governments have ever fully tested their effects on animals, insects or humans.
GENETICALLY MODIFIED (GM) AUBERGINE RISKS IN INDIA: EVALUATION OF THE CONFLICTING SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESES
A few GM aubergine varieties have been modified to synthesize a mutated insecticide toxin(16-17 mg/kg) from a chimeric Cry1Ab-Cry1Ac transgenic sequence. There are also two antibiotic resistance marker genes. The Bt brinjal regulatory approval process is being challenged in the Supreme Court. In order to study health risks, it is necessary to evaluate the longest toxicological tests performed with blood analyses in mammals [1,2]. These are subchronic 90 day tests with goats, rabbits, and rats.
The first important debate is about the possible occurrence of unintended chronic toxicity. This assessment requires long term testing; 90 days is inadequate for such observations. The second is about the interpretation of statistically significant differences in the blood and physiological parameters within 90 days, between animals eating the GM aubergine and those fed its closest isogenic variety used as a control. Various other reference groups were added, not demonstrated to have eaten exactly the same composition in the experiments. Significant observations include for example, in goats eating Bt brinjal, modifications of bilirubin and prothrombin time, as well as alkaline phosphatase. The two first parameters were also changed in rabbits as also albumin, lactose dehydrogenase, alanine and aspartate aminotransferases. Liver weights were modified among other criteria in GM-fed rats. These clear significant differences in the raw data are interpreted as natural variations by its owner Mahyco company [1,6]. MON 863 GM maize producing another insecticide is a comparable case. [3,4,5]. On the other hand, an alternative interpretation is that it cannot be discounted that these differences are first signs of hepatorenal toxicities varying according to the sex, or non linearly, to the dose of GM 2. The only scientific possibility to close this debate must be to repeat and prolong these toxicological tests to ensure the safety of Bt brinjal, since it is a significant source of calories across India.
REFERENCES
1- http://www.envfor.nic.in/divisions/csurv/geac/bt_brinjal.html Raw Mahyco's data (November 2008).
2- Seralini. http://www.criigen.org/brinjal Report on the Bt brinjal counter-valuation for the Supreme Court (January 2009)
3- Seralini, G.E., Cellier, D., Spiroux de Vendomois, J. (2007) New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol., 52, 596-602.
4-Doull, J., Gaylor, D., Greim, H.A., Lovell, D.P., Lynch, B., Munro, I. C. (2007) Report of an Expert Panel on the reanalysis by Seralini et al. (2007) a 90-day study conducted by Monsanto in support of the safety of a genetically modified corn variety (MON 863), Food and Chem. Tox.45, 2073-2085.
5- Seralini, G.E., Spiroux de Vendomois, J., Cellier, D., Sultan, C., Buiatti, M., Gallagher, L., Antoniou, M., Dronamraju, K. R. (2009) How Subchronic and Chronic Health Effects can be Neglected for GMOs, Pesticides or Chemicals. Int. J. Biol. Sci. 5,438-443.
6- GEAC report, Report of the Committee (EC-II) on Bt brinjal event EE-1 (October 2009)
Posted on behalf of Gilles-Eric Seralini, Prof. University of Caen and CRIIGEN, ENSSER, France,