The proposed gift of Indian intellectual assets shows how the nation's interests are thwarted routinely in the world of genetically engineered crops, says Vaijayanti Gupta.
December 2002 - Rice research in India faces a new danger from a series of recent developments at the Indira Gandhi Krishi Vidyalaya (IGKV), involving the administration, the scientists, the agri-business company Syngenta and IGKV's collection of the 20000 indigenous varieties of rice seeds that are available at the institute.
These seeds or 'germ-plasms' were painstakingly collected by the famous Indian rice researcher Dr. Richaria who documented facts about each seed variety in minute detail from the farmers. Recently, a controversy arose over an agreement between IGKV and the agribusiness multinational Syngenta at Raipur, Chattisgarh. IGKV Vice Chancellor V K Patil agreed to sell all of the valuable rice germ plasms collected by Dr. Richaria to Syngenta. A first round of informal talks took place between the IGKV scientists and Syngenta representatives on October 23rd 2002 in Aurangabad; these discussions centered on obtaining funds from Syngenta to conduct combined research in IGKV for the development of hybrid and drought resistant seeds using the Indian rice plasm varieties. These would be marketed by Syngenta and a 'fixed' proportionate royalty given to IGKV from the revenues. The logos of both the IGKV and Syngenta would appear on products.
Following a huge media outcry and protests by civil society organizations across the state, Dr. Patil was summoned for explanation by the Chief Minister of Chattisgarh. He disclosed that there were disagreements on the terms and conditions of the Memorandum of Understanding initially drafted by Syngenta and rigorous revisions keeping IGKV's interests in mind were needed. However, the VC refused to make the final draft of the MoU public. The move of opening the treasure of rice seeds collection to Syngenta was opposed by a few agricultural scientists. The Director of the Hyderabad Rice Research Centre, Dr. B Mishra, was a prominent figure among those critical of the agreement.
There are serious discrepancies in the claims made by the VC of IGKV, and several logical questions are being ignored. While the VC claimed that the talks with Syngenta were preliminary, an earlier press release by IGKV had claimed that these were at an advanced state. Why were the initial talks not held in Raipur, where the IGKV is located and where the public awareness on the issue is far higher? Why is the MoU - that the VC claims has been drafted keeping the interests of the IGKV and Indian farmers forefront - not being released to the public? What is the need to share the research with Syngenta, when the same competence of research on rice is present amongst the scientists in IGKV? At other times, Dr Patil has also claimed that under no circumstance will the IPR on rice research be compromised with and sold to any company. Despite this, there have been moves to transfer Dr Richaria's collection to the International Rice Research Institute (in the Philippines). Dr. Richaria had during his lifetime opposed this strongly, believing that the IRRI would not serve Indian interests.
Syngenta's history of controversial involvement in rice research and marketing is well documented. In recent years the much hyped "golden rice' was released, allegedly to benefit rice-eating populations of South East Asia, as the answer to the Vitamin A deficiency in nations where the staple food is rice. In countries such as India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand and the Philippines, the lack of adequate vitamin A in a rice-based diet causes childhood blindness and up to 1 million deaths a year; genetically modified rice was offered as a plausible solution. However, on scrupulous calculations, it was revealed that to get one's required supply of Vitamin A from golden rice, a child would have to consume absurd quantities of rice each day (9 kg of cooked rice). [See below] Moreover the required dose of vitamin A can easily be fulfilled by consuming a few carrots, yams and other vitamin A enriched substitutes. Further, since vitamin A is fat soluble and requires fats and proteins in the body to metabolize it, a malnourished child would not receive the intended benefit from consuming it. This crucial point was completely ignored by the scientists in Syngenta.
Besides this scientific inadequacy, another big controversy stems from the transfer of publicly funded knowledge to private enterprises for profit. The research leading up to golden rice was largely taxpayer-funded, but golden rice is enmeshed in nearly seventy patents owned by several private companies and institutions. Because of the complexity of licensing arrangements the inventors ceded their rights to Greenovation, a biotech spin-off company from the University of Freiburg, which then struck a deal with AstraZeneca (now Syngenta) to gain "freedom-to-operate" and speed up the transfer of the technology to developing countries. Thus Syngenta was able to acquire exclusive commercial control over a technology that was developed with public funding and purportedly pursued for the greater public good.
Worse still, Syngenta's projection of the benefits of Golden Rice was challenged even by some of the funders. Syngenta claimed that a single month of marketing delay would cause 50,000 children to go blind. The Rockefeller Foundation which funded some of the research pointed out that this claim was still quite far from established, that the research was inadequate, and that publicity and advertising had gone too far in creating hype around golden rice.
The extolling of inconclusive research and appropriation of knowledge for private profit causes great losses both to civil society and public health. Despite widespread controversies over the ill effects on the environment, farming, and health, Syngenta and other agribusiness and biopharma companies continue to develop and market genetically modified products all over the world. When agricultural communities lose ownership of their knowledge and seeds, their socio-economic balance is disturbed significantly. We must evaluate the civil and political values attached to the protection and use of resources. What are the roles of farmers, consumers, scientists, the government, and others in maintaining this balance?
These are compelling questions that need to be asked critically and repeatedly. But the records of deals between Indian administrators, the government, and agri-businesses do not suggest that this is taking place. Monsanto's "terminator technology" would dramatically have reduced farmers' rights to save their seeds, and yet it very nearly was introduced into the nation's croplands. Bt Cotton, which arrived with the promise of pest-resistance, instead generated Bt resistant pests; yet the Genetic Engineeriing Approval Committee granted permission for the widespread planting of this crop, and refused to make test results available for public scrutiny. Herbicides like Roundup (Monsanto) are sold in Indian markets despite being banned in the west for their toxicity and health hazards.
These examples should alert us to deep flaws in the system. Without a serious regulatory environment, and without established procedures for public awareness and scrutiny, far-reaching decisions are made quietly. Dr. Richaria's seed collection could find a similar fate, as one crisis or another grips the national attention. We can ill-afford the lapses in administration or continuing indifference to outright collusion. Rice, the largest staple crop, is especially strategic; how regulatory environments respond to private attempts at monopolising its genome could determine the path taken with other crops as well. What is at stake is Indian farmers' ability to compete in the global marketplace, the food security of the nation, or the public health of the Indian people. But, more than these, such transactions strike at the very foundation of Indian rural life itself.
Dr. Vaijayanti Gupta is a researcher at the United States National Institutes of Health. She was formerly at Syngenta's Torrey Mesa Research Institute in San Diego.
source: http://www.indiatogether.org/opinions/guest/riceigkv.htm 1jan02
How much vitamin a do people need to prevent deficiency?
The FAO/WHO recommend a daily intake of 500 to 850 micrograms of vitamin A
for adults (500 micrograms for females, 600 micrograms for males, 800 micrograms
during pregnancy, and 850 micrograms during breast feeding), and a daily intake
of 400 micrograms for a child between 1 to 3 years of age . This level of intake
is set to prevent clinical signs of deficiency and to allow normal growth.
Higher levels of vitamin A are needed during breast feeding, as the milk is the
source of vitamin A for the baby.
Natural Sources Of Vitamin A, Beta-carotene And Bioavailability
Examples of natural sources of vitamin A include butter, fatty fish liver oil
and sheep's liver. Provitamin A compounds such as beta (b)-carotene are found in
dark green vegetables, fruits and tubers. This beta-carotene needs to be
transformed into vitamin A by the body before it can be utilised. The
availability of beta-carotene and the efficiency of its conversion to vitamin A
are here together termed bioavailability .
There are several factors affecting the bioavailability of provitamin A compounds. The pro-vitamin A in ripe coloured fruits and cooked yellow tubers is converted to vitamin A more efficiently than from green leafy vegetables . Nutritional deficiencies such as of zinc, protein and fat/oil can limit the bioavailability. Hence, a balanced and diverse diet is of importance in maintaining the human body's capability to absorb provitamin A and convert it to vitamin A.
Until recently, 6 micrograms of beta-carotene was assumed to equate to 1 microgram of vitamin A when converted in the human body. However, this ratio is now thought to be an overestimate of the production of vitamin A from provitamin A. The Institute of Medicine of the US National Academy of Sciences concluded in January 2001 that the amount of provitamin A required to create one unit of vitamin A is twice the amount thought previously . According to this new recommendation, 12 micrograms of ingested beta-carotene are required to produce 1 microgram of vitamin A. It has even been suggested that an even lower conversion rate of 21 micrograms beta-carotene to 1 microgram of vitamin A may be more appropriate.
Examples Of Natural Beta-carotene Rich Sources
Many natural food sources are rich in beta-carotene. The following list
provides some examples, and lists the b-carotene concentration in micrograms per
gram of fresh weight for each item.
How Much Provitamin A (beta-carotene) Does The "Golden Rice"
Produce?
The 'best' line (z11b) of the genetically engineered (GE) "Golden
Rice", produces 1,6 microgram beta-carotene per gram of (uncooked) rice .
The scientists point out that reliable quantification must await homozygous line
with uniformly coloured grains. As long as there are no homozygous lines, the
'z11b' GE rice does not transmit the provitamin A traits to all its progeny in a
stable fashion. The scientists aim to get a homozygous line that contains 2
micrograms provitamin A per gram of rice.
Could The Human Body Utilize The Beta-carotene Of The GE Rice?
An unanswered question is the bioavailability of the beta-carotene in the GE
rice. There is no study yet published about the bioavailability of the
beta-carotene in the GE rice. One of the scientists involved in the development
of the 'Golden Rice' has stated: "[…] we have no data yet on the
bioavailability and the stability during storage".
How Much Vitamin A Could Humans Get From The GE Rice?
The recommended daily nutritional intake of vitamin A for an adult female is
500 micrograms and for a woman who is breast feeding, 850 microgram . This
translates into 6000 and 10200 micrograms of beta-carotene respectively,
according to the new recommendation of the US National Academy of Sciences
Institute of Medicine (12:1 beta-carotene to vitamin A).
The GE rice currently produces 1.6 microgram of beta-carotene per gram rice.
Assuming that the bioavailability of the beta-carotene in the GE rice would be as high as in vegetables and fruits, then (in accordance with the new US National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine recommendation):
References
source: http://www.indiatogether.org/reports/goldenrice/vitaminA2.htm 1jan02
See more of this issue at India Together
All that glitters
is not gold: A tale of genetic engineering for
nutrition in India.
|
If you have come to this page from an outside location click here to get back to mindfully.org |