Prof Marc Van Montagu, founder of the Institute of Plant Biotechnology Outreach (IPBO), Belgium, winner of the 2013 World Food Prize http://www.bibalex.org/cssp/Presentations/Presentations.aspx?ID=qkIpW2G2X2uSQVuszsxYEQ==Randal Keynes, great-great-grandson Who pushed me for this day?

Is there anything wrong with genetically modified crops

from TeosinteMaize

By artificial selection that began ~10,000 years ago.

The March of Genetic Technology1860Mendel: making crosses, introducing genes1920Discovery of hybrid vigor1950Inducing mutations1960Tissue culture and embryo rescue1980Plant transformation and GMOs2000Genomics

The scientific basis of all crop improvement is the identification of the genes that encode certain phenotypic characteristics.

Those genes can now be transferred more easily (via marker assisted breeding - no GM) or directly (through genetic engineering - GM)

Can change plant so that it has new or different characteristicsProduce needed proteinInsect resistanceHerbicide resistanceDrought or other stress resistance

Why Change a Plants DNA?

Genetically Modified Crops: Why and What to Know AboutOne most epoch-making development of science and technology, biological technology to be precise, that is going to shape the history of civilization

Use-applications of the products of GM technology concern every man, not alone the knowledgeable few or the promoters

Passionate debates about the foreseen prospects and unforeseen problems of the technology is raging the country, if not the whole world

Being at the interface of science and society, it is our duty to be aware and make people aware of the technology and its implications

We need to know the concept behind the technology, and where the confusion and confidence come from about its use

Creation of a GM plant relies on a natural gene transfer mechanism

*

Genetically Modified Crops : Concept

History of agricultural civilization is the history of progressive domestication of plants via genome modification through natural crossing of species having recent common ancestor, by and large, homologous recombination via inter- & intra-species hybridization

Rediscovery of Mendels tenets in early 20th century lead to intensive plant selection for desirable traits following planned intra- and interspecies crossing between parents linked by recent common ancestor

Most food crops, including rice, wheat, oats, maize potatoes, brassicas and tomatoes are products of crossing, initially natural, then deliberate and planned hybridization

Modern day S. tuberosum is just one example of a crop carrying manipulated genome R genes for resistance against Late Blight disease introduced from non-edible wild Solanum spp.

Recent is too short a time frame in terms of our common ancestor; GMOs have crossed the evolutionary time frame of Recent common ancestry

Genetically Modified Crops : Historical Landmarks

1940

20101975 1944

19531957

1966 1970 - 73

1977

19811983-851994 19962006: GM crop cultivation crosses 100m ha world wideAvery, McLeod, McCarty: DNA as hereditary carrier DNA Transformation of bacteriaKornberg: DNA polymerase enzyme discovered

Weiss & Richradson : DNA ligase enzyme discovered

Cohen et al. : Recombinant plasmid DNA synthesis & gene cloning Berg : Recombinant DNA molecule synthesized; Hamilton Smith : Restriction endonuclease discovered; Gilbert / Sanger DNA sequencing perfected; Nester et al.: A. tumifasciens genetically transforms host cells

Insulin production in GM E.coli cellsHall : GM sunflower with soybean gene produced; First GM crop field tested in UK

Slow ripening GM tomato approvedfor food use in USACommercial cultivation of GM maize & soybean

Watson & Crick: DNA structure elucidated

Total

Industrial

Developing160 million hectares 395 million acresSource: C.James, ISAAA. 2006

Global area of GM crops: 1996 2010Industrial vs. developing countries (m ha)

*

Global area of crops with Bt technology is nearing half of total area in the world planted to biotech crops (James, 2009). Meanwhile, the graph below shows that Bt technology is steadily adopted globally, along with other traits from biotechnology. Global area of GM crops: 1996 2009

Area under GM crops: 1996 2009By country (in million hectares)

Global adoption overall and as percentage, for Principal GM crops in 2009 (m ha)

>10 million farmers growing GM crops, of whom 90% are in developing countries, majority with small holdings, viz Bt cotton in China and India.

What are peoples concernsIs this food safe? Should food be labeled?Are there adverse environmental effects?Patenting of seedsDiscrimination against the poorWho benefits?

All of these concerns apply to food and agriculture in general

These concerns are generally true for all innovations. Promote the general welfareMaintain peoples rights (individuals, groups, corporations)Ensure justice: burdens and benefits must be fairly shared

Governments create policies based on the following principles:

Agriculture is the main cause of environmental change and degradation

Agriculture has narrowed the gene pool and caused a loss of biodiversity

Wild Progenitors and RelativesLand RacesElite Lines

Environmental Hazards from PesticidesSubstantial health impacts on workersPollution of natural ecosystems/ waterwaysLoss of insect biodiversity in agroecosystemsCreation of secondary pestsCreation of insect races resistant to pesticides

What about India?

Genetics is always better than chemicals: GM Cotton with a Bacillus thuringiensis Cry gene is resistant to Cotton Bollworm. Cry encodes an insecticidal protein

Reduced Pesticide Use with Insect-Protected CottonInsect Control Ledger for Bt CottonManufacturingDistributionApplication Financial BenefitStewardshipApplies ? million fewer pounds of insecticide in 2.5 fewer applications per acre Disposes of ? fewer insecticide containersSaves ? hour farm work daysConserves ? million gallons of fuel and ? million gallons of water

Accrues ? Million INR in economic benefits from lower production costs and increased cotton yield

Reduces pesticide exposure risk Preserves beneficial insect populationsCreates wildlife benefits Gives cotton producers more time for family and community activitiesGives cotton producers peace of mind

Transports and stores ? fewer gallons of insecticideConserves ? gallons of fuel oil

Produces fiber equivalent to that found in all consumer products derived from cotton

ConsumerBenefitSaves ? million pounds of raw materialConserves ? million gallons of fuel oilEliminates ? million pounds of industrial waste

NetBt Cotton

*

Some GM crops have the potential to mitigate the environmental impact of agriculture: less pesticide, less dust, more biodegradable herbicides

Roundup tolerant soybeans can be Planted with no-till procedures, which eliminate plowing (dust),Save water and use a biodegradable herbicide

Genetically Modified Crops: Dissection of the PolemicsWhat is the Debate About ?Heterologous recombination virtues or vicissitude ?

So long as genetic modification was based on gross genetic homology between parents, there was no objection; objection is now primarily against heterologous recombination, and to some extent against the mechanics of recombination

What the proponents see as virtues, opponents project as vices

Difference in value judgment proponents justify by need perception whereas opponents justify by threat perception

Both proponents and opponents belong to well-informed minority (consumers), not the non-informed majority (producers)

Conflict of consumer producer interest

Seed CompaniesUS ConsumerTechnologyInventorUS FarmerTotal Benefits 200M 400M 600M 800M 1000M

100% 76%7%4%3%ESTIMATED BENEFITS IN MILLION DOLLARSDISTRIBUTION OF BENEFITSFROM HT (RR) SOYBEANSOURCE: Falck-Zepada,J.B., G. Traxler and R.G. Nelson. 1999, Rent Creation and Distribution From Biotechnology Innovations: The Case of Bt Cotton and Herbicide Tolerant Soybeans in 1997.Agribusiness. $1,061M$796M$74M$42M$32MGM crops Benefit Sharing among the Stakeholders : US experience with 1st generation GM crops

Who gains from the GM technology?

*

Genetically Modified Crops Two sides of the DebateConfusion & Confidence Genetic engineering is imprecise and unpredictable; By inserting foreign genes into the DNA of a host, new life forms are created that have never occurred in nature. Long term impacts of such manipulations are unknown Green Alternatives to Globalization A Manifesto, M. Woodwin & C. Lucas, Pluto Press, 2006.

The serious issues are getting lost in all the extreme statements (about GM crops) . No one is trying to redesign nature or humanity. It is absurd to say that we have left everything in its natural state until now, we havent. What biotechnology is doing is targeting nature in a more precise and specific way than before Patrick Bateson, VP, Royal Society, UK, www.guardian.co. uk, June 23, 2002

Genetically Modified CropsThe Need Perception Proponents ViewpointsThere is fundamental genetic homology in terms of chemical basis of heredity among all organisms

The technology is the same as done by man since time immemorial, only the modification has become more precise and predictable, less cost and time intensive

Strategically placed to increase global food production by reducing crop losses and increasing yields while conserving precious farmland

Shall reduce the need for chemical pesticides, tillage, irrigation, and free agriculture from over dependence on fossil fuel energy

Genetically Modified CropsWhere the Benefits Come FromIncreased and more durable Biological Tolerance to specific pests , diseases and viruses to reduce the need for chemical pesticides -

In Africa, sweet potato yield doubled in 5 years by adoption of feathery mottle virus resistant GM varieties, resistance of papaya to Ring spot virus, Bt cotton against bollworm

Adaptability to abiotic stresses drought, salinity, water logging, extreme temperature etc. -

Cold tolerance of GM Canola with higher linoleic acid content

Tolerance to environmentally safe herbicides

Round up Ready maize and soybean

Desirable functional characteristics

Delayed ripening, longer shelf life, reduced allergenicity / toxicity etc

Desirable nutritional characteristics altered protein and fat content, increased essential amino acids, vitamins and mineral content

Increased provitamin A content of Golden Rice, increased starch content of chips making potato

Convenient medium for drug & vaccine delivery through edibles

Yield Effects of Genetically Modified Crops in Developing CountriesM. Qaim & D. Zilberman, Science 299: 900-2, 2003. On-farm field trials carried out with Bt-cotton in different states of India show that the technology substantially reduces pest damage and increases yield. The yield gains are much higher than what has been reported for other countries where GM crops were used to replace and enhance chemical pest control. In many developing countries small-scale farmers especially suffer big pest-related yield losses because of technical and economic constraints. Pest-resistant genetically modified crops can contribute to increased yields and agricultural growth in those situations, as the case of Bt-cotton in India demonstrates.

Bt Cotton Yield Advantage: Indian Experience* Mean values are different from those of non-Bt counterparts and popular checks at a 5% significance level

M. Qaim & D. Zilberman, Science 299: 900-2, 2003.

Disease control in a GM cropPapaya transformed with viral CP geneField reaction of GM & non-GM papaya crop compared at various stages6 MAP12 MAP24 MAPField View

Genetically Modified CropsThe Threat Perception Opponents Viewpoints

Environmental Concern: Risks to the environment and economics of food production Development of resistant organisms, weeds & pests, and loss of biodiversity

Concern about health and hygiene: Potential risks to human health, mainly through impacts on food safety - allergenicity, acute toxicity of GM products, evolution of resistant pathogenic microflora etc

Economic and social Concern: Direct costs of investment and production, particularly for less developed countries

Political concern: Designed to suit globalization, corporate exploitation and capitalism

Genetically Modified CropsKey Issues Behind Concern Environmental concern Effect of GM crops on non-target organisms

Impacts of GM crops on soil ecosystems

Gene flow from GM crops to wild relatives

Invasiveness of GM crops into natural habitats

Impacts of GM crops on pest and weed management

Sanvido O, Stark M, Romeis, J., and Bigler F. (2006) Ecological impacts of genetically modified crops : experiences from ten years of experimental field research and commercial cultivation, Agroscope Reckenholz Tanikon Research Station ART, Zurich, Switzerland. Genetically Modified CropsSummary of Conclusions from 10 years data

Switzerland is one EU country that is yet to adopt GM crops in large scale

Genetically Modified Crops vs. EnvironmentConcern 1: Effect on non-target organisms

There are concerns that insect-resistant GM crops expressing Bt-Cry proteins could directly harm organisms other than the pest(s) targeted by the toxin and thus affect biological diversity in a region.

No adverse effects on non-target natural enemies, pollinators and other micro- and meso- fauna resulting from direct toxicity of the expressed Bt toxins have so far been observed in laboratory studies and in the field. There is evidence that the Bt crops grown today are more target-specific and have fewer side effects on non-target organisms than most current insecticides used.

Genetically Modified Crops vs. EnvironmentConcern 2: Impacts of GM crops on soil ecosystems

Concerns are raised that Bt crops can have adverse effects on soil organisms. Bt toxins enter the soil via root exudates, crop debris. Degradation and inactivation of the toxin vary, depending on agro-ecological factors. Initial degradation of the toxin is rapid, a low percentage (< 2%) may remain in the soil after one growing season. However, No accumulation of Bt toxins has been observed after several years of cultivation of Bt crops.

Population sizes and community structure of soil organisms are subject to both seasonal variation and to variations caused by the agricultural system (soil type, plant age, crops, cultivars, and crop rotation). Neither laboratory nor field studies have shown lethal or sub-lethal effects of Bt toxins on non-target soil organisms such as earthworms, collembola, mites, woodlice, or nematodes. Some differences in total numbers and community structure have been described for microorganisms, but whether the differences between Bt and non-Bt crops were exceeding the natural variation is doubtful . The only study considering natural variation suggests that observed effects lie within this variation and that the differences between conventional cultivars outweigh the observed influences of Bt crops.

Genetically Modified Crops vs. EnvironmentConcern 3:Gene flow from GM crops to wild relatives There is general scientific agreement that gene flow from GM crops to sexually compatible wild relatives can occur. GM crops are capable of spontaneously mating with wild relatives, however, at rates in the order of what would be expected for non-transgenic crops. Questions remain whether these transgenes would cause ecologically relevant changes in recipient plant populations. Although there is a low probability that increased weediness due to gene flow could occur, it is unlikely that GMHT weeds would create greater agricultural problems than conventional weeds. Fitness of a weed in natural ecosystems is not necessarily due to one or two genes factoring for specific toxin proteins, enzymes etc. In natural habitats, no long-term introgression of transgenes into wild plant populations leading to the extinction of any wild plant taxa (biodiversity loss) has been observed to date. Transgenes conferring herbicide tolerance are unlikely to confer a benefit in natural habitats because these genes are selectively neutral in natural environments, whereas insect resistance genes could increase fitness if pests contribute to the control of natural plant populations.

Hmm I wonder if there could be gene flow?Gene flow occurs when crops cross with wild relatives growing in relative close proximity to the fields.

Gene flow requires sexual compatibilityGene persistence requires an evolutionary advantage for the new trait

Genetically Modified Crops vs. EnvironmentConcern 4:Invasiveness of GM crops into natural habitats Concern that GM crops, when released could invade natural habitats to be a potential risk to nature. It seems that modern crop varieties generally stay domesticated and volunteer crops as weeds are rare in natural ecosystems. There is no evidence at present that the cultivation of GM crops has resulted in widespread dispersal of volunteer crops carrying transgenic traits and becoming weeds.

Furthermore, there is currently no evidence that HT crops have become feral and invaded natural habitats.

Whether a crop will become a weed in an arable ecosystem depends on the attributes of the crop, the ecosystem and the introduced gene, and is not a generic character of all GM crops.

Genetically Modified Crops vs. Environment Concern 5: Impacts of GM crops on pest and weed management evolution of resistant population Impacts of GM crops on pest and weed management practices and their potential ecological consequences are being debated.

Numerous weed and pest species evolved resistance to a number of herbicides and pesticides long before the introduction of GM crops. Such resistance is an evolutionary process to acquire survival fitness in organisms and is not unique for genetic modification.

Large-scale GM crops cultivation confirms that development of herbicide or pesticide resistances in target weeds or pests is not primarily a question of genetic modification, but of the crop and management practices. Despite extensive cultivation of GMHT oilseed rape in Canada and Bt maize in USA / China, no weed or pest species has so far been observed being tolerant to the herbicides glyphosate and glufosinate or the Bt transgene. The problem, if it surfaces can be tackled by conventional approaches.

Genetically Modified Crops KEY ISSUES BEHIND CONCERNFood Safety Concerns

Transgene (DNA) itself may be toxic, may be transferred to the consumerTransgene product (protein) may be toxic / allergic to consumers / handlersTransgene may increase hazard from toxins or pharmacologically active substances present in the hostThe antibiotic marker / viral gene promoter etc.may pass on to human / animal gut microbes to create hazardNutritional value of the transgenic crop may change

Social Economic Concern GMCs are cost intensive, especially for the resource poor farmers in countries like ours

Entry of and virtual control of world seed / input market by exploitative private capital

Reversal of subsistence polyculture farming with attendant ecological benefits of the East-Southeast to input intensive monoculture farming of the West-Northwest

Shall not solve hunger / poverty as access, not availability of food is the real issue

Genetically Modified Crops KEY ISSUES BEHIND CONCERN

GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROPS Concerns How Real?Three publications in Nature 1999-2001 that spoke of environmental danger of GM crops: JE Losey et al. Transgenic pollen harms Monarch larvae Nature 399: 214, 1999 D Saxena et al. Insecticidal toxin in root exudates from Bt corn Nature 399: 402, 1999 D Quist & I Chapella Transgenic DNA introgressed into traditional maize landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico Nature 414: 541-43, 2001

These and such other publications are translated as: The End of the World as we Know it!(Greenpeace Brief on GM Crops)

Genetically Modified Crops Concerns How Real ? Monarch butterfly, the Conservation Flagship species of the USA was seen to be low on survival & consumption rates when laboratory fed with milkweed leaves (natural weed host) dusted with Bt-maize pollen (Losey et al. Nature 399: 214, 1999)Several independent field and laboratory investigations later showed that the ruling Bt- hybrid maize pollen was neither toxic nor the possibly toxic Cry genes expressed in pollens. Further studies showed that Bt-expressing crops posed little risk to non-target insects, pollinators, natural enemies (Ref. Angharad MR et al. 2002. The case of the Monarch butterfly: a verdict returned. Trends in Genetics 18:249-251)Nature in its long history of service to science and society had to express regrets for publishing the paper without appropriately verifying the details - design, methodology, and findings of the laboratory experiment

Genetically Modified Crops : How Confusions SpreadGreenpeace (China) review document prepared by Prof. Xue Dayuan of Nanjing Institute of Environmental Science claimed Bt-cotton has destabilized Chinas insect ecology and perpetuated farmers reliance on harmful pesticides.

When challenged by CAAS with contrary data the author agreed I think Im a little biased, I didnt use research evidence that showed advantages of Bt-cotton because I was focusing on adverse effects (Biotechnology Update 4, June 2002, Biotechnology Information Center, Mumbai) Incidentally, China grows the largest area of GM cotton in the world

Genetically Modified Crops -Concerns How Real?

Cases of human allergy to traces of Bt proteins in Starlink maize (expressing Cry9C gene) was announced by Friends of the Earth (USA) leading to withdrawal of all Bt maize food / feed products by the US FDA

17 persons who reported allergy upon ingestion of Bt-Cry9C maize found ELISA negative for IgE antibodies against Cry9C proteins by CDC, USA, casting doubt about FDA spot tests for allergenicity.

A double blind placebo trial commissioned by EPA-SAP found the patient who reported repeated allergy as wholly allergy negative to Starlink maize protein (containing Cry9C protein) by intra-dermal test while positive to standard histamine check.

(Sutton SA et al. 2003. A negative double blind placebo controlled challenge to GM corn. J. Allergy Clinical Immunology 112: 1011-12)

Genetically Modified Crops -Concerns How Real?Ewen S & Pusztai A (1999) Effects of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthaus nivalis lectin on rat small rat intestine. The Lancet 354: 1353-54The Royal Society commissioned independent investigation that later debunked the findings that led to scare and public outcry (Halford NG, Plant Biotechnology, P. 24, John Wiley, 2006)European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) reported (2007) that there is no evidence the GM animal feed can have harmful effects on meat & egg. The recombinant DNA did not survive passage through the intact GI tract of healthy human subjects fed GM soya. To date large number experimental studies have shown that DNA fragments or proteins derived from GM plants have not been detected in tissues, fluids, eggs or other other edible products of farm animals

http://www. Worldpoultry.net/news/id2205-26307/efsa

Genetically Modified Crops Concerns How Real ?

Quist & Chapellas data ( PCR detection of DNA signature diagnostic of genetic engineering) to claim horizontal gene transfer from transgenic maize to traditional maize landraces in Mexico (D Quist, IH Chapella, Nature 414: 541:2001) were later found as interpretations based on PCR artefacts and commented by independent scientists / reviewers as worst science (Metz & Ftterer, Nature, Apr02).

As a sequel, Nature had to somewhat retract by saying evidence available is not sufficient to justify publicationof the paper.

The fate of the other paper (Saksena et al., 1999, Nature, 399: 402, 1999) on Bt toxin root exudates of Bt maize harming soil biodiversity was similar.

What are the main food issues?The # 1 safety issue is bacteria The # 1 health issues are fat, sugar and salt

What about their nutritional value and safety?

Compositional equivalence of Bt and non-Bt crops Food quality of GM and non-GM counterpart (Proximate analysis data)

Fibre Fat ProteinCarbohydrateResults generated on GM maize event Bt 11 and its conventional counterpart: No difference for other nutritional factors (protein quality, minerals & vitamin content) has been found

Are GM foods safe and nutritious?

All GM foods have been extensively tested and they are as safe as other foods in the market place. GM crops can be made into convenience and junk food just like organic crops and other crops!Nutrition depends on the food, not the method of crop breeding

Every year 250,000 children become blind because of vitamin A deficiency

Some GM crops will improve the nutritional quality of foods. Such foods are now in the pipeline.

A GM soybean line, developed as a collaboration between the USDA and DuPont, is hypoallergenic in humans.The approach is to down regulate the expression of the gene encoding the major allergenic protein (antisense)

How to Label?

Conventionally grownGMOPesticides, twice a weekPesticide free

*Conventional grown

So, whats the bottom line?GM foods are as safe and there is promise for more nutritious food.For some crops, environmental impacts are similar or less than conventional agriculture.GM is an important tool for the plant breederGM technology can solve problems that cant be solved in other ways at present.The benefits will be spread between biotech companies, farmers and consumers.

Seed CompaniesUS ConsumerTechnologyInventorUS FarmerTotal Benefits 200M 400M 600M 800M 1000M

100% 76%7%4%3%ESTIMATED BENEFITS IN MILLION DOLLARSDISTRIBUTION OF BENEFITSFROM HT (RR) SOYBEANSOURCE: Falck-Zepada,J.B., G. Traxler and R.G. Nelson. 1999, Rent Creation and Distribution From Biotechnology Innovations: The Case of Bt Cotton and Herbicide Tolerant Soybeans in 1997.Agribusiness. $1,061M$796M$74M$42M$32MGM crops Benefit Sharing among the Stakeholders : US experience with 1st generation GM crops

Who gains from the GM technology?

*

How confusions spread : Campaign against GMC & GR technology in crop productionRural poverty ratio in Punjab stood at 7.21 % against all India average of 35.25% in 2001-2002Food Security in Exchange of Cancer?Photo: Rice transplantation in PunjabAnandabazar Patrika, Calcutta, 30-06-2010

Genetically Modified Crops: How Confusion Spreads Campaign against GM Rice in West BengalAnandabazar Patrika, Calcutta, 31-12-2010

Starvation Death Threat For Farmers With GM Crops

Genetically Modified Crops The Frame for Dialogue & DebateWhen discussing the risks of GE crops, one has to recognize that the real choice for farmers and consumers is not between a GE technology that may have risks and a completely safe alternative. The real choice is between GE crops and current conventional pest and weed management practices, all possibly having positive and negative outcomes. To ensure that a policy is truly precautionary, one should therefore compare the risk of adopting a technology against the risk of not adopting it. We thus believe that both benefits and risks of GE crop systems should be compared with those of current agricultural practices.

Genetically Modified CropsConfidenceThere is no free lunch in Natures Reception Party

All technologies are preset with risks that was not there without the technologyBiotechnology, for that matter Green Technology, may not be an exception alsoBenefit: cost ratio (social cost not excluded)to determine utility

Risk is a product of hazard X exposure can be minimized by reducing either potential hazard or potential exposure or both

While concerns about GMCs arise from potential hazards, confidence arises from reducing potential exposure and / or hazard

Consumer Convenience Dictates Acceptance of a Technology ------ as for exampleRisks associated with mobile phone use are arguably higher than they are for the current commercialized GMCs, yet because of the convenience that mobile phones provide to the user, they are much more acceptable to usersTOI, Calcutta, 03-02-11

Am I only preaching ?

Beura and Rakshit (2011)

Beura and Rakshit (2012)

Beura and Rakshit (2011)

Beura and Rakshit (2011)

Abstract: Use of the insecticidal cry proteins from the bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) in cotton has raised a number of concerns, including the ecological impact on soil ecosystems.Greenhouse study was conducted during the 2011 wet season (March to August) at the Institute of Agricultural Sciences of Banaras Hindu University. It was carried out on three different soil orders that includedentisol, inceptisol and alfisol. Bt cotton (var.NCS-138) and its non-transgenic isoline (var.NCS-138) were grown until maturity. A no crop pot was maintained for all the three soil orders. The highest rate of decomposition was found in alluvial soil compared to black and red soils in 50 days after incorporation (DAI). Thereafter the rate of decomposition was slowed downby100 DAI and the constant rate of decomposition was found in 150 DAI. The rate of decomposition was higher in non Bt than Bt crop residues. Keywords: Bt cotton, soil types, decompositionDECOMPOSITION OF BT COTTON AND NON BT COTTON RESIDUES UNDER VARIED SOIL TYPES Authors: Sujata Kumari, Amitava Rakshit, Kasturikasen Beura Article type: Regular Article of Biotechnology Articels in next issueThe Journal of Microbiology, Biotechnology and Foof Sciences

Genetically Modified Crops

DO WE NEED THEM?

Final submissionIt does become necessary to take decisions in the best interest of the nation, guided by genuine scientific inputs, rather than attempting a consensus.Agriculture is not just about technology, since it embodies a culture and there are political and sociological over tones. It needs to be realized that GM is only an innovative approach to provide a technological solution, but it should not be made a scape goat if there is failure else where.

EPILOGUEI am pleased to hear that the Government of India had finally approved the cultivation of Bt cotton. Congratulations! Now that the door has been opened for the use of transgenic biotechnology on one crop, I hope it will soon be approved for other traits on other crops, wherever there is proven advantage within acceptable levels of risk.As an enthusiastic friend of India, I have been dismayed to see it lagging behind in the approval of transgenic crops, while China forges ahead. I hope Indias recent approval of Bt cotton is indicative of a change toward more progressive leadership in agricultural policy.I am convinced that wise use of biotechnology will be crucial to Indias food security

Nobel Peace Laureate Norman Borlaug letter to the Indian scientific community < http://www.agbioview.org>2008

PM BRINGS HOPE FOR SCIENTISTS OVER INTRODUCING GM FOOD CROPS IN INDIA AFTER SAFETY TRIALS

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said his government remained committed "to promoting the use of these new technologies for agricultural development". NEW DELHI: IN A REMARK WHICH MAY BRING SMILE ON THE FACE OF THOUSANDS OF AGRICULTURE SCIENTISTS ACROSS THE COUNTRY, THE PRIME MINISTER MANMOHAN SINGH ON MONDAY SAID THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT SUCCUMB TO "UNSCIENTIFIC PREJUDICES" AGAINST GENETICALLY MODIFIED (GM) CROPS. GIVING A STRONG SIGNAL TO GREEN ACTIVISTS WHO HAVE BEEN OPPOSED TO THE TRANSGENIC CROPS WITHOUT ANY SCIENTIFIC BACKING, SINGH SAID HIS GOVERNMENT REMAINED COMMITTED "TO PROMOTING THE USE OF THESE NEW TECHNOLOGIES FOR AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT".HIS REMARKS, CAME WHILE DELIVERING INAUGURAL SPEECH AT THE 101ST INDIAN SCIENCE CONGRESS (ISC) IN JAMMU, MAY SEND A SENSE OF RELIEF TO SCIENTISTS COMMUNITY IN GENERAL AND AGRICULTURE SCIENTISTS IN PARTICULAR WHO HAD DEVELOPED MANY TRANSGENIC SEEDS OVER THE YEARS BUT COULD NOT GO FOR FIELD TRIAL DUE TO MORATORIUM ON SUCH ACTIVITIES.TOI, Varanasi, 03-02-14

AcknowledgementMinistry of Science & Technology, DST,Government of IndiaBANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITYMSc Students: Kasturi, Sujata and Prachi

*

*

*

*

*Conventional grown*