Pro-GMO Activism in India: Journalism Gives Way to Spin, Smears and Falsehoods

February 22, 2016
Pro-GMO Activism in India: Journalism Gives Way to Spin, Smears and Falsehoods

by Colin Todhunter

In a recent piece for the magazine Swarajya (an online and print publication based in India​ ), its national affairs editor, Surajit Dasgupta, makes it clear that he has no time for any criticisms about the use of GMO technology in food and agriculture. He has even less time for those who voice such criticisms.

He argues that ‘activists’ concerns’ would be valid if a GMO were proved to be not substantially equivalent to its non-GM-derived counterpart and if any negative non-intended consequences of genetic engineering were detected. Although failing to cite any relevant texts, Dasgupta then argues that “Report after report will tell you that the concerns above are but an activist’s red herring.”

This is simply incorrect. There is enough evidence to contest the claim that GMOs are ‘substantially equivalent’ to non-GMO and that negative consequences of GM have indeed been detected.

GM is technically and conceptually different from natural breeding and poses different risks. This fact is recognized in national and international laws and agreements on genetically modified organisms (GMOs). For example, European law defines a GMO as an organism in which “the genetic material has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination” and requires the risks of each GMO to be assessed (European Parliament and Council. Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC. Off J Eur Communities. 2001:1–38).

More:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/22/pro-gmo-activism-in-india-journalism-gives-way-to-spin-smears-and-falsehoods/