Biofoods in India: 5. Coping with threat

While replicating experiments to confirm earlier findings, other researchers discovered an area of concern that those involved with creative biotechnology had failed to consider - that the disease resistance biofoods displayed, depended on environmental factors. In places where the disease-producing fungi species are stronger or that which witnesses an outbreak of the disease, the artificially developed hybrid becomes as vulnerable as the non-hybrids forms.

A study conducted by CSRIO in 2006 reported findings that led to several similar GM bio-foods projects in Australia being scratched from production. In them, gene transfer had been attempted between bean and pea to make the latter resistant to pea weevils attack. Safety tests conducted over a specific period by independent agencies found the product allergen–free. In further testing however, it was discovered that over time, the transgenic pea altered the structure of protein formations enough to caused immune reactions among certain test animals.

The consumer resistance to GM-products gained momentum with what has been named “frankencorn.” This is a Bt corn hybrid type that was taken to and flourished in Mexico. In the process, the existing biodiversity gene pool comprising of 20,000 corn varieties and plant relatives were in danger of being choked out of existence with the “pollution". Experiments on mice conducted in Europe showed that a sustained diet of Bt corn does eventually cause health problems. The biotech firms that had licenced the product, however, continued to aggressively market in the region, pricing it lower than the local non-hybrid grains.

Regulatory norms in many countries of the world are generally not as wide-angled as those in the West. Many business houses attempt to slip through the loopholes that they find in other parts of the world. For example, the purview of regulatory body GEAC (India) is only “environmental safety”. By applying to this body, the biotech companies obtained exemption certificates for their processed bio-foods. The branded potato chips that contained ingredients banned in the West may not have harmed the environment, but there was no gainsaying the fact that the human consumers (who fell outside the regulatory purview), were at risk.

Regulatory bodies in different countries differ in their focus for mandatory labelling. Some focus on finished product, which needs a label only if traces are found on testing, and others on technology process that requires GM labels being pasted always. Because these add to costs that eat into returns on investment, companies prefer to avoid them. Such tactics contributes to the public acquiring blanket sensitising against the biofoods, the companies that produce them and the scientists associated with their research. In India, biotechnology is already stridently opposed by the nation’s NGOs, and supported by their overseas-based counterparts like Greenpeace. New GM-product labelling rules now proposed in the country may turn out more stringent than elsewhere.

Backing GM-foods production at the NDTV-hosted world economic forum seminar 'Rethinking how to feed the world' in Davos recently, Bill Gates put the onus on national Governments. They would need to take the call on the issue of starvation amongst their people, weighing the benefits of biofoods against the risks.

Western governments are generally pro-business. Heads of State help to open new markets by lobbying for the multinational companies. The Indian governance, in contrast, is pro-poor and hence economic reforms across the country are slow. The system responds quickly to acute environmental disasters like floods or famine, but is far less active in responding to chronic problems of poverty, malnutrition or sanitation. On the question of biotechnology, the political parties whether in power or in opposition, have perched on the fence, with no definitive stand on the issue, either for or against.

Fact is creating and testing products in laboratory conditions is only half the job done. Companies cannot ignore the need for stringent, ongoing safety testing. These identify potentially toxic side effects in different climate zones and bio-diversity. The imminent costs of the process would reduce through meaningful partnerships with local scientific institutions. They would be better equipped to pursue the issues in their specific environments, and perhaps devise innovative solutions to eliminate the errors arising in their jurisdiction.

Scientists and companies also need to rethink their assumptions about products and their potential consumers. In the age of information, people no longer appreciate being told what to buy. Being far more cognizant of their own needs today, people resent coercion or deception. For instance, the past practice of corporate bodies of dumping surpluses on the unsuspecting developing nations should urgently be eschewed. Transparency in business, like providing necessary information on product labels, would not only enable consumers take informed choices on product selections, it would stimulate their continued satisfaction and brand loyalty.

With better knowledge about the scientific techniques that benefit both people and environment, consumers may understand the source of their resistance – largely a carryover from the past. Many biotechnology advocates believe the consumer resistance will eventually die down. Australia, like Europe and unlike India, has so far harboured strong resistance to GM-technology. Studies conducted there have found positive indications of a thaw in attitudes resisting change. It may be hoped that in time, the improved “next generation” of bio-foods will improve consumer acceptance enough to actually combat world hunger.

References…next