By Marcus A. Clay

Amidst a widely split opinion, Greenpeace has urged Chief Minister
Karunanidhi to ban genetically modified (GM) crops in the state as it claims
that the crops will have wide ranging side effects that include infertility.
With many of those in the science fraternity up in arms against genetically
modified food being introduced into the market, eminent fertility experts in
the city assert that GM crops should be banned as it could affect the immune
system and cause liver failure and infertility.

Kamala Selvaraj, a fertility expert in the city, draws one?s attention to
the recent Austrian study that has proved that GM corn causes infertility.
Highlighting the fact that GM crops are not sufficiently tested, she says,
?Many genetically modified crops are being tested only now. It might take a
few years or even a generation to see their impact and by then, it will be
too late because the effects are irreversible.?
Reaffirming the need for adequate testing, Dr Sujatha Byravan, molecular
biologist and former president of the Council for Responsible Genetics says,
?Genetic engineering as a technology cannot be taken as safe without
adequate safety tests.?

Greenpeace believes that the country doesn?t have proper labelling system of
GM foods and consumers will no longer be able to exercise choice once GM
products flood the markets.
Leon Mathews, a young professional and avid science fiction reader says,
?Two decades ago, global warming and food shortages were what science
fiction dealt with. Genetic manipulation wasn?t a serious issue and those
who opposed GM products had their way. But, with the new global challenges,
we don?t have that luxury any more. We have to take a fresh look at things.
Food shortages will soon spark conflicts with the growth in population and
rising demand for food. One shouldn?t be against technology just because one
doesn?t like what it sounds like.?

Pradeep Cornelius, an IT professional says, ?If you can take a natural gene
and introduce it into a plant and make it resistant and high yielding it?s a
win-win situation. When objections come from organic farming lobbyists who
say that they want to preserve traditional methods of farming, it?s clear
that there is more to it than meets the eye. Technology should not be
automatically rejected as bad. Extensive field tests should be conducted and
a labelling method should be put into place. This will allow people, who don?t
want to subscribe to the new products, to exercise their choice.?

When told that GM products are believed to cause infertility, Pradeep
responds, ?It?s a legitimate concern and elaborate tests need to be
considered. But we should take a balanced approach. There cannot be a black
or white answer to this problem. We should look at the subject in a rational
and sensible manner.?
Pallavi Mehta, an agriculture student believes the sudden hype is
politically motivated. She says, ?Issues like GM have high level political
and economic implications. Ever since large corporates took up GM, the
problem has taken on a new colour. The debate is no longer about whether
this particular technology is good or not. It is about who is going to make
money and who will exert the most influence on global markets.?

With the corporatisation of science, technological development is more about
profits. Pallavi says, ?Technology is supposed to make things easy. But the
aim of big corporates is usually to make money. When there is a change in
ambition, the definition of ?better crops? changes. Policy makers should
take concrete steps instead of pretending to solve the problem.?

Summing up the debate on the pros and cons of technological development,
Colin Tudge, biologist and author of Feeding People is Easy, in an article
says, ?Sensible people, who care a damn, should get together and start doing
things differently despite the government and corporates and build new
institutions.?
www.checkbiotech.org