Biofoods in India: 6. References

References for Biofoods in India posts 1-5:

1. Banytė, Jūratė., Jokšaitė, Eglė., & Virvilaitė, Regina. “Relationship of Consumer Attitude and Brand: Emotional Aspect” COMMERCE OF ENGINEERING DECISIONS. 65 ISSN 1392-2785 ENGINEERING ECONOMICS. 2007. No 2 (52) pp 65-77.
2. “Bill Gates Backs Genetically Modified Food Research” whybiotech.com Council For Biotechnology Information. February 2^nd 2010.
3. Burton, M., & Pearse, D. (2002). Consumer attitudes towards genetic modification, functional foods, and microorganisms: A Choice modeling experiment for beer. AgBioForum, 5(2), 51-58.
4. Carey, John and others. “Are Bio-foods Safe?” Science and Technology: Biotech. BusinessWeek: December 20, 1999.
5. Coale, Kristi. “The Biofood battle” Investigation. Centre for Investigative Reporting, California, USA. August 1, 2000.
6. Cummins, Ronnie. “Biodiversity Bombshell”. organicconsumers.org BioDemocracy News #37 Frankencorn Fight: Cautionary Tales. 10 Jan 2002
7. Doyle, Mark. “The limits of a Green Revolution?” news.bbc.co.uk BBC News Special Report. BBC World Service Documentary Archive. 29 March 2007.
8. “Food Biotechnology: Consumer perceptions of food biotechnology” SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS FOR INDIA. ASIAN FOOD INFORMATION CENTRE (AFIC) 2008.
9. “GM peas cause immune response – A gap in the approval process?” gmo-compass.org GMO Compass. 3 January 2006.
10. “Greenpeace uncovers illegal GM food in India” greenpeace.org News. Greenpeace India. May 02.2008.
11. Gruère, G.P, & Rao, S.R. (2007). A review of international labeling policies of genetically modified food to evaluate India’s proposed rule. AgBioForum, 10(1), 51-64.
12. Hazell, Peter B.R. “Green Revolution curse or blessing?” Ifpri.org International Food Policy Research Institute, USA. A Future Harvest Centre. 2002.
13. Hoban, Thomas J. “Public Attitudes towards Agricultural Biotechnology.” fao.org ESA Working Paper No. 04-09. May 2004 Agricultural and Development Economics Division, The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
14. "India rejects GM food from USA" biotech-info.net The AgBioIndia Bulletin. International Policy. January 23, 2003.
15. Jain, Sonu. “Doors opened for processed GM foods to enter market” indiaexpress.com India Express. September 26, 2007.
16. Kent, L. (2004). “What's the holdup? Addressing constraints to the use of plant biotechnology in developing countries.” AgBioForum, 7(1&2), 63-69.
17. Krishna, J. “Activists Gift 'last GM free Brinjals' to 150 Tamilnadu MLAs” greenpeace.org News. Greenpeace India. January 28.2009.
18. Krishna, Vijesh V.; Qaim, Matin “Consumer Attitudes toward GM Food and Pesticide Residues in India” (Abstract) Review of Agricultural Economics, Volume 30, Number 2, Summer 2008, pp. 233-251(19).
19. Moeskops, Oddette. “Resistance: how do you handle your emotional response towards it?” Management site for and by professionals
20. Munkvold, Gary P., and Hellmich, Richard L. “Genetically modified, insect resistant corn: Implications for disease management” APSnet Feature, October 15 thru November 30, 1999, APSnet Plant Pathology Online.
21. Ramaswami, B. (2007). Biofortified crops and biotechnology: A political economy landscape for India. AgBioForum, 10(3), 170-177.

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

Biofoods in India: 4. Sting in the tail

Like the Midas touch that literally turned food, water and even people to gold, every boon to humankind is double edged. Advanced biotechnology is no exception. In genetically engineered biofoods, the resistance to disease vary with the conditions - individual or environmental differences could actually change the disease profile into something completely unexpected.

The 1960s “green revolution” too, carried a sting in its tail. Within a few decades, farmers using the technology found that the much hyped “food sufficiency” came at a price. The hybrid seeds required the intensive use of fertilisers, pesticides and irrigation. The techniques then best served those who could afford the technology, could count on ample rainfall or had access to irrigation facilities.

Further, certain problems refused to go away, or new ones were created in their stead. The agricultural pests soon attained pesticide resistance, or mutated to new forms. Other chemicals were needed to protect the crops from these new, developed strains. New hazards to health and the environment were also being created. The pesticides permeated the air, diffused into the earth, and eventually, seeped into the ground water. They thus affect not only insects and bacteria, but also the entire food chain.

The chemical deluge diffusing through the environment poisoned plant and animal systems. Children felt the effects from birth itself, with many being “born blue” suffering cyanosis. Families living along the farming belt found members developing cancer. There was depletion of groundwater levels, salinising of prime farmland, loss of biodiversity and destruction of other wildlife. The environmental degradation and income inequality made the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Scientists examined the properties of toxic contaminants that contribute to pollution of the environment – soil, water and air. They studied the biochemical nature of various plants, insects and animals and devised advanced processes to improve human health. Genetic engineering “injected genes” from one species or genus into another. Investigative journalist Coale explains,

…researchers implanted a gene from a fish that swims in icy arctic waters into strawberries and tomatoes to help the vulnerable fruits ward off frost.

This process makes the conventional method of spraying strawberries and tomatoes with water to protect them from the harsh weather redundant.

“Designer genes”, they reasoned, would ensure that crops carry higher contents for vitamins, other nutrients, as well as various vaccines for immunization. The genetic manipulations of plants would make them immune to viruses and bacteria. Crops would become far more hardy then before and able to withstand extremes of weather and temperature. In India, proposals were made to cultivate grain and vegetables similarly resistant to agricultural pests and herbs.

For instance, the commercial release of insect-resistant Bt corn was hailed around the world. The product also met the protocol standards of environmental impact, food safety, nontarget effects, and pest resistance the regulators had set up. Extensive field tests with livestock feed in Iowa USA showed a reduction in their “vulnerability to mycotoxin-producing fungi”. These myotoxins are the disease carriers that pass from the plants to humans and other animals.

Malnutrition is a recurring problem in India, with millions suffering from anaemia, blindness, goitre, etc. Traditionally these have been dealt with supplement tablets like vitamin A or fortifying common foods like salt with iodine. “Biofortifying” grains or seeds with micronutrients are considered both cheaper and more effective in alleviating the health problems of the masses. There have also been proposals for bio-fortifications whereby essential micronutrients may be genetically introduced into grain, like Golden Rice that contains carotene or Vitamin A to combat night blindness.

Sadly the process has a catch – called allergens. The first generation of GM bio-foods are best described as ‘experimental’ because the nature of the errors that occurred were never visualized at the drawing boards. The new gene that is introduced causes formation of entirely new class of proteins, originally absent in the host. The “allergen” is a reaction-producing protein. It may be a miniscule part of the food, but it causes an immunological response in the plant or body by itself, or by its reaction to bacteria existing in the digestive tract of its consumers.

For example, in the mid-1990s, a biotechnology company had attempted to boost the content of protein in soybean by introducing a specific gene from Brazil nut. The protein content was enhanced as expected, but the new gene produced a new virulent allergen in addition, and the project had to be abandoned. The lesson to be learned here is that long-term safety testing of engineered products needs to be mandatory.

Next…the threat

Biofoods in India: 3. The patent connection

The resistance to the biotech companies and hence to their bio-foods, has centred on people being unable to find sufficient benefits for consumers. The public disfavour has, in turn, prompted the political leadership to impose more stringent controls. These developments have not however, encouraged companies to change their business tactics in foreign markets.

For example, the outcry in the West against “frankencorn” led to tighter food safety regulatory controls there. Major overseas buyers of grain, like Japan and Korea, then refused to accept consignments of any of the genetically manipulated forms. The rejections would cause an annual loss of about 200 million USD for biotech firms in USA. To make up their losses, these firms proceeded to offload the surpluses on Mexico and other ‘third world’ countries.

In 2008, random tests were conducted on imported processed foods picked up from shelves in Indian supermarkets. Greenpeace reported findings from independent laboratories that in potato chips ingredients, the Mon 863 and NK 603 varieties (from genetically modified potatoes) were present. These are genetically altered for resistance to pests and herbs, but they could pose serious health impacts to humans. Monsanto, one of the largest concerns operating in the region, had marketed the products being sold at retail outlets without the required labels to warn consumers.

Corporate business leadership generally has little knowledge of the technical intricacies of research. Firms like the agri-biotech giant may have operated on the presumption that a food safety clearance back home in USA ensures that their products are safe for all climates and countries over time. Consequently, they are little inclined to further testing of their products. There are no plans for developing “local partnerships” to carry on testing or work on developing applications to suit local environments.

Besides, although the initial discovery and creative processes receive heavy funding from various institutions, few resources address the research needs of developing countries. Stark differences remain in the conditions between the originating laboratories and the farmlands of developing countries targeted. The biotechnology applications originating in the West are thereby doomed to failure.

In public perception, scientists involved in GM projects lead insulated lives. Ensconced in state-of-the-art workplaces with unwavering focus on R&D, they are an elite class completely out of touch with the ground realities of less developed nations. Faith in their involvement with poverty and starvation is minimal. The general consensus is that the processes they advocate might work in the advanced economies, but are unlikely to do so on the remote side of the globe.

Consumers suspect a nexus between “mad scientists” and companies driven by bottomlines. The scientists are committed to discoveries, publications, and patents. Private biotech companies that get licences to these patents and incorporate them into the products, market for business profits. They have neither interest nor skill in products developments according to new situations. Words like 'social responsibility' have not figured in their lexicon.

Awareness groups like Safe Food Alliance are up in arms against the companies, their subsidiaries, and their scant tie-ups with universities in India. In the southern state of Tamil Nadu, scientists have been running GM cultivation trials for sometime now with the vegetable Bt brinjal to win licensing approval from the Government. But activists have launched stiff protest demanding a complete ban on GM bio-foods in the country, to pressure the Government into disallowing commercialisation amongst the population of over a billion people.

Next...the sting

Biofoods in India: 2. To eat the brand or not

That the green revolution transformed agricultural practices in India is widely acknowledged. The benefits of advanced biotechnology have also been perceived positively amongst the majority. The source of the resistance to bio-foods then originates not in biophilia or politics, but elsewhere. The projected disfavour may actually be directed against those who represent the biotechnology in the minds of people – the multinational companies.

Object attitudes are built on personal perceptions, feelings, and propensity to act. The attitude, says Banytė, is “achieved”, usually by direct or indirect experience. Once formed, it is relatively permanent, it motivates behaviour and resists change. Consumer experiences contribute to cognitive evaluations of goods and services and subsequently, determine the attitudes formed towards them. Emotional satisfaction develops a positive attitude; else negative impressions persist in thought, feeling and action. The object in question and all things associated with it are thence either liked or disliked.

Surveys have shown that people of different cultures react differently to mandatory labels on foods. In USA, for example, many people tend to assume that the products labelled GM (genetic manipulation) are inferior. The French generally overlook GM labels, but if attention is drawn to them, tend to change their choices. People in India prefer to read labels for dates, medicinal qualities, etc., instead. A recent survey study (2008) conducted by the Asian Food Information Centre (AFIC) found that Indians are more concerned about inaccurate labels, hygiene, and the use of low quality ingredients.

Perceptual differences to biotechnology exist in food production countries like India and China, and food importing ones like Japan and South Korea – the former more positive about the benefits of plant biotechnology. Survey results conducted by Environs International in 2000-01 showed that up to 69 percent of people in India felt that improved food quality, health betterment and food sustainability outweighed the possible risks associated with biotechnology.

Over the years the corporate industry has attempted to utilize cultural attitudes for their own profits. In long term, their tactics have backfired. Now, although the majority of Indians have a very favourable opinion about biotechnology, the national perception of Western business practices overseas has been discouraging. Consequently, brand relationship with the multinational firms is minimal.

India has had a long experience of being “dumping ground” for the West. In the first three decades since India’s independence from colonial rule in 1947, all of her food-grain imports including consignments under the “PL-48” food aid programme were found to be little better than “cattlefeed”. As late as the year 2000, despite seller assurances about their safety, a GM soybean consignment was found to contain “15 diseases, seven of which are viral diseases”.

The point is the first generation of GM foods has focused on producer benefits. That is, on immediate profits for the company, grossly overlooking the effects of their actions in the long-term. Banytė et al comment:

Globally it is possible to find not a single brand, successfully applying the means of emotional impact in communication with consumers.

The Indian people have become sensitized against multinational organizations in aggressive search of new markets. They have learnt to mistrust their trade practices, the levels of their knowledge and awareness in new environments. Thenceforth, as a matter of policy, all cultivatable GM bio-foods including 1000-tonne grain consignments arriving as food aid for the poverty-stricken have been systematically rejected.

Next…the patent

Biofoods in India: 1. Advent of the miracle answer

The World Economic Forum 2010 at Davos, Switzerland had delegates as wide ranging as the topics of global interest they deliberated on. The use of Biotechnology, for instance, was discussed to tackle issues of starvation all over the world. Biotechnology is not a new process. It has been utilized globally for centuries. Indeed, life would have been bland without bread, cheese, yoghurt, wines and other alcoholic beverages!

GM (genetic manipulation) techniques are said to take the process further to improve taste and nutritional values of food yields. Scientists who have created them believe that they are the ‘miracle’ answer to worldwide hunger, malnutrition and disease. Such bio-foods are sources rich in fibre, minerals, vitamins, and many with new or enhanced medicinal qualities.

India is a ready market for the miracle workers, with a quarter of its population under the poverty line. Yet the many multinational biotechnological companies pushing their products in India are intensely frustrated with their minimal headway. Since 2002, only one product type, three species of Bt cotton, has been allowed cultivation. The Government’s most recent move has been to allow the entry of processed products. That is, foods that, as end-products, no longer contain living micro-organisms able to “propagate or reproduce”.

Theorists have put forth several explanations for this: biophilia or the lack of political will. The problem could be the technology itself, with discomfort in agrarian India over new-fangled techniques. With an eye on elections, governments may also be unwilling to upset the traditional practices of the vote-banks.

However, history does not quite support the explanations. Fact is, the “green revolution” actually started in India in the 1960s in response to the deteriorating food situation in places hit by prolonged drought. Scientist M.S. Swaminathan imported the technique developed by Norwegian-American agronomist Norman Borlaug of cross breeding plant species to make specific hybrid grain seeds - rice, wheat and corn. This completely transformed agricultural practice.

Author Doyle writes,

It was so successful in terms of production increases that it defied the gloomy Malthusian predictions of the 1960s, which said hundreds of millions would starve as population outstripped farm output.

The people of India are pro rather than anti-technology. In other technological applications like computers or telecommunications, they compete on the world stage. Regarding the new agricultural process, not only did subsequent governments welcome the process, farmers more importantly, gladly adopted the new techniques in place of traditional practices. The success has been attributed to the size of the hybrid plants. They were far shorter than the indigenous variety. The changed physical structure maximises photosynthesis, because the plant stalks take up less energy. The process, so readily accepted in India, was then applied in other parts of Asia, Latin America and the Middle East.

In the picture author Hazell paints,

Instead of widespread famine, cereal and calorie availability per person increased by nearly 30 percent, and wheat and rice became cheaper …led to sizable increases in returns to land, and hence raised farmers’ incomes… stimulated the rural non-farm economy, which in turn grew and generated significant new income and employment of its own.

Poverty and malnutrition are severe challenges to the world in general, and in particular to Indian aspiration of becoming a “superpower”. As the largest democracy, it is obvious that the country desperately needs the benefits of technology to ensure food for the teeming millions - hardy crops, biofortifications and enhanced productions.

A survey study conducted in 2008, reported findings that GM vegetables would have a majority (60%) acceptance in India. Even the minority who have reservations about the potential risks are open to purchasing them at discounts. Why then did a resistance to bio-foods arise within four decades of the ‘green revolution’? Clearly there is need to dig deeper for reasons to explain the turnoff.

Next...the brand