Air Pollution in Delhi

Delhi has become one of the most polluted cities of the world. Delhi government has announced odd-even formula for private cars in the city. The question arises why vehicles are being targeted to combat air pollution? The plausible answer is that the major source of air pollution in the city is vehicular emission. PM2.5 is the most important pollutant among others. 

PM2.5 is the respirable fraction of the particulate matter which can reach deeper in our lungs causing irreversible respiratory problems. The winter season is the worst time for air quality due to lower mixing heights and calm conditions of atmosphere. Also presence of fog may result in smog (smoke+fog) in winter months. 

As the air pollution is a three dimensional issue, it is difficult to solve it in the medium when it travels from source (vehicular and industrial emissions) to  receptor(plants, water bodies and human beings). In such cases the best thing to control the pollution is to control it at source itself. Control at source can be done  by using cleaner fuel in industrial processes, by using pollution controlling devices (e.g. Electrostatic Precipitaters  and catalytic converters). At receptor level (for us it it our nose) we have to wear mask. However, it is not a foolproof solution as such masks are costly and its use is impractical and tiring. Green plants can be a great solution for combating air pollution in such cases. But how can we grow plants in urban areas which are full of concrete structures? We can develop vertical greenery systems and urban forests. In case of Varanasi India, some climber plants were used to develop vertical greenery systems (Pandey et al. 2015). However, air quality can only be manages if integrated approach is utilized. The reduction in the emission of pollutants from its source, proper dispersal of pollutants and its reduction or transformation by various processes especially with the help of green plants. 

References:

Pandey AK, Pandey M, Tripathi BD Assessment of Air Pollution Tolerance Index of some plants to develop vertical gardens near street canyons of a polluted tropical city Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2015.08.028

Pandey AK, Pandey M, Tripathi BD (2015) Air Pollution Tolerance Index of climber plant species to develop Vertical Greenery Systems in a polluted tropical city Landscape and Urban Planning 144:119-127 doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.08.014

So Delhi is now the most polluted Capital of the world in terms of Air pollution

Saharan dust, traffic fumes and smog from Europe may be clogging up London's air at present - and causing alarm in the newspapers - but in the world's most polluted city London's air would be considered unusually refreshing. That city is Delhi, the Indian capital, where air quality reports now make essential reading for anxious residents.

In London last week, the most dangerous particles - PM 2.5 - hit a high of 57 - that's nearly six times recommended limits.

Here in Delhi, we can only dream of such clean air.

Our reading for these minute, carcinogenic particles, which penetrate the lungs, entering straight into the blood stream - is a staggering 215 - 21 times recommended limits. And that's better than it's been all winter.

Until a few weeks ago, PM 2.5 levels rarely dipped below 300, which some here have described as an "air-pocalypse".

Like the rest of the world, those of us in Delhi believed for years that Beijing was the world's most polluted city.

But last May, the World Health Organization announced that our own air is nearly twice as toxic.

The result, we're told, is permanent lung damage, and 1.3 million deaths annually. That makes air pollution, after heart disease, India's second biggest killer.

And yet, it's only in the past two months as India's newspapers and television stations have begun to report the situation in detail that we've been gripped, like many others, with a sense of acute panic.

It's a little bit like being told you're living next to an active volcano that might erupt at any moment.

At first, we simply shut all our doors and windows and sealed up numerous gaps. No more seductively cool Delhi breezes could be allowed in.

We began checking the air quality index obsessively.

Then, we rushed out to buy pollution masks, riding around in our car looking like highway robbers. But our three-year-old wouldn't allow one anywhere near her face.

Our son only wore his for a day, and only because I told him he looked like Spider-Man.

Despite our alarm, many Delhi-ites reacted with disdain. "It's just dust from the desert," some insisted. "Nothing a little homeopathy can't solve," others said.

But we weren't convinced.

When we heard that certain potted plants improve indoor air quality, we rushed to the nursery to snap up areca palms, and a rather ugly, spiky plant with the unappealing moniker, mother-in-law's tongue.

But on arrival, the bemused proprietor informed us that the American embassy had already purchased every last one.

In any case, we calculated that to make a difference, we needed a minimum of 50 plants.

"We could get rid of the sofa to make room for them," my husband offered.

Instead, we borrowed an air pollution probe from a friend to work out what progress, if any, we'd made.

Switching it on, our P-M 2.5 levels registered an off-the-charts 44,000.

My husband scratched his head, consulting the manual.

"This says 3,000 is hazardous."

"It must be broken," I said.

But it wasn't, so we had to call in the experts.

One afternoon, a young man turned up with a small, free-standing air filter, specially modified for Delhi's dust. He pressed a button, which activated something called a "plasma cluster".

After 20 minutes, the numbers on our air monitor began to drop... precipitously.

My husband and I watched, mouth agape, as the readings went down from 44,000, to 20,000, then 11,000. Eventually, the probe settled around the 1,000 mark.

That's still worryingly high by global standards... and that's only the air inside our home. There's nothing we can do about the air outside.

The government has announced that it will install more air quality monitors in Delhi and that it will ban diesel-belching vehicles more than a decade old.

But that's a drop in the ocean compared to India's pro-growth economic policies, which still rely heavily on subsidised, dirty diesel.

The trouble is on many days, you can't see the pollution.

Right now outside my window is an intensely blue sky filled with flocks of lime green parakeets and frangipani trees just beginning to unfurl their waxy, fragrant blossoms and I find myself wondering if it isn't perfectly OK to take my kids out to play football.

But in the past few months, at least a dozen families we know have moved away, either to cleaner towns and cities, or outside of India.

And although I'm still lulled by the reassurances of long-time residents - "Don't worry - it's nothing," they chide - I am beginning to wonder if it isn't time to think about moving too.

Compared to Delhi right now, London and even Beijing are looking like pretty good options.

source BBC news

News

Direct link to this article
Clearly signalling that defence projects are high priority for the Narendra Modi government, Environment Minister Prakash Javadekar on Thursday said his ministry is working on a policy framework to fast-track green clearance processes for border roads and defence projects in the area up to 100 kms from the Line of Actual Control (LAC).
This move could give a major boost to India’s new Mountain Strike Corps against China — several elements of which are stuck due to pending environment clearances.
Defence Ministry sources said that close to 80 critical border roads have been stuck for many years due to environmental hurdles. These include crucial GS (General Staff) roads that link border outposts and camps to the main roadhead. In all, around 6,000 km of critical road stretches which were stuck can now be expedited.
In fact, the Defence Ministry has also been working on a legislation to ensure exemption of strategically significant projects — especially those along the LAC — from green regulations that may be hampering progress.
While these roads projects are crucial, the more critical project that could be passed with relaxed norms would be to establish the elements of the new Mountain Strike Corps that is being raised along the eastern border with China.
Even as the Corps headquarters and other elements are being raised, the new formation requires camps, infrastructure and military bases along the border. Sources said that such projects, on approximately 5,000 hectares of land in the eastern sector (mostly Arunachal Pardesh), have been held up due to environmental hurdles.
In the past, the Defence Ministry has taken up the issue of expediting green clearances in border road projects several times. Several border road projects frequently run into trouble with the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), as many of these not only propose to traverse through forest land but also through reserved parks and sanctuaries.
Last year, the Defence Ministry had also requested the MoEF for relaxation in forest conservation rules to allow diversion of forest land for creation of essential infrastructure in border areas in an area up to 5 hectares.
On Thursday, Javadekar said after his meeting with the Defence Secretary that the move towards a defence specific policy framework was intended “to reduce the delays caused by the process of environmental clearances particularly for the defence projects”.
“It was an effort intended to make simpler, transparent and predictable the process for environmental clearances. Going forward, the ministry would take decisions rooted in the policy framework rather than making case-by-case decisions. The details of the policy framework would be worked out soon and the document would be put in the public space,” said a statement issued by the MoEF.

Celebration of Holika dahan and its effect on Environment

Holi is one of the main festivals of Hindu religious beliefs. Holika dahan is celebrated as a symbolic representation of victory of good over evil. Many green trees are being burnt each year not only to destroy greenery but also to add up the pollution levels. In past this festival was not so vast but with increase in population and numerous human settlement in urban area is really problematic.
Urban areas in India are already suffering from scarcity of green spaces and such festivals add up to the problem.
We should limit the number of Holika in each area and should not cut green vegetation for this purpose. Our great religion always advocates of conserving the nature, but with the changing scenario in the urban areas we are following some of the things blindly and will pay for it in future. 

Environmental issues in India

The rapid growing population and economic development are leading to the environmental degradation in India because of the uncontrolled growth of urbanization and industrialization, expansion and massive intensification of agriculture, and the destruction of forests.
Major environmental issues are Forest and Agricultural land degradation, Resource depletion (water, mineral, forest, sand, rocks etc.,), Environmental degradation, Public Health, Loss of Biodiversity,Loss of resilience in ecosystems, Livelihood Security for the Poor.
It is estimated that the country’s population will increase to about 1.26 billion by the year 2016. The projected population indicates that India will be the first most populous country in the world and China will be ranking second in the year 2050. India having 18% of the world's population on 2.4% of world's total area has greatly increased the pressure on its natural resources. Water shortages, soil exhaustion and erosion, deforestation, air and water pollution afflicts many areas.
India's water supply and sanitation issues are related to many environmental issues.

Major issues

One of the primary causes of environmental degradation in a country could be attributed to rapid growth of population, which adversely affects the natural resources and environment. The uprising population and the environmental deterioration face the challenge of sustainable development. The existence or the absence of favorable natural resources can facilitate or retard the process of socio-economic development. The three basic demographic factors of births (natality),deaths (mortality) and human migration (migration) and immigration (population moving into a country produces higher population) produce changes in population size, composition, distribution and these changes raise a number of important questions of cause and effect.
Population growth and economic development are contributing to many serious environmental calamities in India. These include heavy pressure on land,land degradation, forests, habitat destruction and loss of biodiversity. Changing consumption pattern has led to rising demand for energy. The final outcomes of this are air pollution, global warming, climate change, water scarcity and water pollution.
Environmental issues in India include various natural hazards, particularly cyclones and annual monsoon floods, population growth, increasing individual consumption, industrialization, infrastructural development, poor agricultural practices, and resource maldistribution have led to substantial human transformation of India’s natural environment. An estimated 60% of cultivated land suffers from soil erosion, waterlogging, and salinity. It is also estimated that between 4.7 and 12 billion tons of topsoil are lost annually from soil erosion. From 1947 to 2002, average annual per capita water availability declined by almost 70% to 1,822 cubic meters, and overexploitation of groundwater is problematic in the states of Haryana, Punjab, and Uttar Pradesh. Forest area covers 18.34% of India’s geographic area (637000 km²). Nearly half of the country’s forest cover is found in the state of Madhya Pradesh (20.7%) and the seven states of the northeast (25.7%); the latter is experiencing net forest loss. Forest cover is declining because of harvesting for fuel wood and the expansion of agricultural land. These trends, combined with increasing industrial and motor vehicle pollution output, have led to atmospheric temperature increases, shifting precipitation patterns, and declining intervals of drought recurrence in many areas.
The Indian Agricultural Research Institute of Parvati has estimated that a 3 °C rise in temperature will result in a 15 to 20% loss in annual wheat yields. These are substantial problems for a nation with such a large population depending on the productivity of primary resources and whose economic growth relies heavily on industrial growth. Civil conflicts involving natural resources—most notably forests and arable land—have occurred in eastern and northeastern states.
After all these major challenges the Indian government is not implementing the strict laws against increasing population and protecting the environment.

Water pollution

Main article: Water supply and sanitation in India

Out of India's 3,119 towns and cities, just 209 have partial treatment facilities, and only 8 have full wastewater treatment facilities (WHO 1992).^[3] 114 cities dump untreated sewage and partially cremated bodies directly into the Ganges River.^[4] Downstream, the untreated water is used for drinking, bathing, and washing. This situation is typical of many rivers in India as well as other developing countries.
Open defecation is widespread even in urban areas of India
Water resources have not therefore been linked to either domestic or international violent conflict as was previously anticipated by some observers. Possible exceptions include some communal violence related to distribution of water from the Kaveri River and political tensions surrounding actual and potential population displacements by dam projects, particularly on the Narmada River.

Ganges

Millions depend on the polluted Ganges river.

Main article: Pollution of Ganga

To know why 1,000 Indian children die of diarrhoeal sickness every day, take a wary stroll along the Ganges in Varanasi. As it enters the city, Hinduism’s sacred river contains 60,000 faecal coliform bacteria per 100 millilitres, 120 times more than is considered safe for bathing. Four miles downstream, with inputs from 24 gushing sewers and 60,000 pilgrim-bathers, the concentration is 3,000 times over the safety limit. In places, the Ganges becomes black and septic. Corpses, of semi-cremated adults or enshrouded babies, drift slowly by.
– The Economist on December 11, 2008^[8]

More than 400 million people live along the Ganges River. An estimated 2,000,000 persons ritually bathe daily in the river, which is considered holy by Hindus. In the Hindu religion it is said to flow from the lotus feet of Vishnu (for Vaisnava devotees) or the hair of Shiva (for Saivites). The spiritual and religious significance could be compared to what the Nile river meant to the ancient Egyptians. While the Ganges may be considered holy, there are some problems associated with the ecology. It is filled with chemical wastes, sewage and even the remains of human and animal corpses which carry major health risks by either direct bathing in the water (e.g.: Bilharziasis infection), or by drinking (the Fecal-oral

Yamuna

NewsWeek describes Delhi's sacred Yamuna River as "a putrid ribbon of black sludge" where fecal bacteria is 10,000 over safety limits despite a 15-year program to address the problem.^[9] Cholera epidemics are not unknown.

Air pollution

Indian cities are polluted by vehicles and industry emissions. Road dust due to vehicles also contributing up to 33% of air pollution^[10] In cities like Bangalore, around 50% of children suffer from asthma.^[11] India has emission standard of Bharat Stage II (Euro II) for vehicles since 2005.
One of the biggest causes of air pollution in India is from the transport system. Hundreds of millions of old diesel engines continuously burning away diesel which has anything between 150 to 190 the amount of sulphur out European diesel has. Of course the biggest problems are in the big cities where there are huge concentrations of these vehicles. On the positive side, the government appears to have noticed this massive problem and the associated health risks for its people and is slowly but surely taking steps. The first of which was in 2001 when it ruled that its entire public transport system, excluding the trains, be converted from diesel to compressed gas (CPG). Electric rickshaws are being designed and will be subsidised by the government but the supposed ban on the cycle rikshaws in Delhi will require a huge increase on the reliance of other methods of transport, mainly those with engines.
Another major cause of Air pollution is due to cremations in India. In India 78% of the population consign the dead bodies to fire for cremation as a ritual in open air. Traditionally they have been using butter ghee and a few herbs while the body is confined to fire. These are required since the wood-fire temperature does not go beyond 300 C or 600 F but when the butter ghee is added the temperature obtained is up to 700 C or 1400 F, which has been proved now scientifically to be optimum temperature required for cremation of a human body. Just as the low temperature creates pollution, higher temperature is also found to create pollution with emissions dangerously harmful for the environment.
By consigning the corpse to fire, these pollutions' risks are reduced and if, in that fire some Ghee and Havan Samagri is added, the practice and experiments have established that there is less of environmental pollution and emission of foul smell because of their disinfecting properties. By adding ghee to the fire, the rise in temperature of the flames results in total destruction of those germs and worms.
Paryavaran Sanrakshan Nyas- a non-government voluantary organisation of Chandigarh (India), chose to undertake this task which had escaped the attention of the people in the urbanised cities. In rural areas in villages even today, they use lot of ghee, herbs and cow dung (which is a strong anti-pollution agent when burnt) to arrest this pollution. Besides, the Cremation Grounds in the villages are placed at far-isolated areas, away from the populated localities. In cities, the situation is different. The Cremation Grounds are mostly located in and around the habitated areas affecting seriously the living population.(Pollution through Cremation by Savita Sethi published by Paryavaran Sanrakshan Nyas 2005)
Aware of all these factors and the problem, the four women- M/s. Savita Sethi, Sudesh Gupta, Prem Lata Duggal and Usha Ghai of Chandigarh thought of the issue and decided to fight out this un-noticed pollution being caused in the 'City Beautiful' and create awareness amongst the residents. To carry out the mission they decided to form a Trust and elicit support and co-operation from elite and awakened members of the society. Subsequently a Trust under the name of Paryavaran Sanrakshan Nyas was got registered at Chandigarh with nine Trustees of the Nyas. (Pollution through Cremation by Savita Sethi published by Paryavaran Sanrakshan Nyas 2005)
The Trust believed that besides contributing to this noble social cause of pollution control, a respectful and appropriate adieu could be also given, to the departed soul of those unprivileged people who are not able to bear this bare minimum for the last rites of their beloved ones. The Trustees decided that on every cremation the Trust shall contribute one kg. of pure Ghee and five kgs. of Havan Samagri ( a mixture of organic herbs having ingredients which have anti-pollutant, disinfectant, aromatic, nourishing and nutritive qualities)- a voluntary contribution of 5 kgs. of Havan Samagri mixed in 1 kg. of Desi Ghee on every cremation of any caste, creed or faith at the Chandigarh Crematorium and thus save the City from such threatened possible pollution.
It also appeared that the excessive pollution was having an adverse effect on the Taj Mahal. After a court ruling all transport in the area was shut down shortly followed by the closure of all industrial factories in the area. The air pollution in the big cities is rising to such an extent that it is now 2.3 higher than the amount recommended by WHO (world health organization).^[14] (Pollution through Cremation by Savita Sethi published by Paryavaran Sanrakshan Nyas 2005)

Noise pollution

The Supreme Court of India gave a significant verdict on noise pollution in 2005. Unnecessary honking of vehicles makes for a high decibel level of noise in cities. The use of loudspeakers for political purposes and by temples and mosques make for noise pollution in residential areas.
Recently Government of India has set up norms of permissible noise levels in urban and rural areas.^[16]. How they will be monitored and implemented is still not sure.

Land pollution

Land pollution in India is due to pesticides and fertilizers as well as corrosion^[17]

Conservation

Now the world's rarest monkey, the golden langur.

Main article: Wildlife in India

India, lying within the Indomalaya ecozone, hosts significant biodiversity; it is home to 7.6% of all mammalian, 12.6% of avian, 6.2% of reptilian, and 6.0% of flowering plant species.
In recent decades, human encroachment has posed a threat to India's wildlife; in response, the system of national parks and protected areas, first established in 1935, was substantially expanded. In 1972, India enacted the Wildlife Protection Act and Project Tiger to safeguard crucial habitat; further federal protections were promulgated in the 1980s. Along with over 500 wildlife sanctuaries, India now hosts 14 biosphere reserves, four of which are part of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves; 25 wetlands are registered under the Ramsar Convention. aparna

reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_in_India

Bt Brinjal

Bt Brinjal

February 8, 2010 9:18 pm by Ashutosh Pandey

What is Bt Brinjal? Bt Brinjal is a transgenic brinjal created out of inserting a gene [Cry 1Ac] from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis into Brinjal. The insertion of the gene into the Brinjal cell in young cotyledons has been done through an Agrobacterium-mediated vector, along with other genes like promoters, markers etc. This is said to give the Brinjal plant resistance against lepidopteran insects like the Brinjal Fruit and Shoot Borer (Leucinodes orbonalis) and Fruit Borer (Helicoverpa armigera). It is reported that upon ingestion of the Bt toxin by the insect, there would be disruption of digestive processes, ultimately resulting in the death of the insect. Bt Brinjal is being developed in India by M/s Mahyco [Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company]. Now, the company wants to take up large scale field trials with the permission of the GEAC in 2006-07. The importance of this development can be understood from the fact that no GM Brinjal has been released for an advanced stage of field trials in open conditions anywhere in the world and that this is the first time that GEAC could be giving permission for large scale open trials for a food crop in India – in a country which has repeatedly proven itself incapable of regulating GM technology and has allowed contamination as a routine affair. The proliferation of illegal Bt Cotton in the country is a good testimony to serious irreversible lapses that could happen at the trials stage. Needless to say, a vegetable, more than other food items, goes through very little processing and is directly consumed through cooking and therefore requires great caution in decision-making. The transformation work on Bt Brinjal started in Year 2000. Biosafety tests like pollen flow studies, acute oral toxicity etc., were taken up along with back-crossing programme from 2002. After two years of greenhouse evaluation, in 2004, multi-locational field trials were conducted in 11 locations with five hybrids [Mahyco’s MHB-4 Bt Brinjal, MHB-9 Bt Brinjal, MHB-10 Bt Brinjal, MHB-80 Bt Brinjal and MHB-99 Bt Brinjal]. This was also the year when ICAR [Indian Council for Agricultural Research] took up trials with the same hybrids under the All India Coordinated Research Project on Vegetable Cultivation in 11 locations. While the ICAR second year trials continued for these five hybrids in 2005, three more new hybrids were assessed by the company [MHB-11 Bt Brinjal, MHB-39 Bt Brinjal and MHB-112 Bt Brinjal] and ICAR in the same year in eleven centres. Mahyco has sub-licensed the technology, as part of the USAID-supported, Cornell University-led ABSPII project [consortium of public and private sector institutions] to Tamil Nadu Agricultural University (TNAU), The University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad and The Indian Institute of Vegetable Research, Varanasi (IIVR). This transfer of technology was apparently free-of-cost, with the public sector institutes allowed to develop, breed and distribute their own Bt Brinjal varieties on a cost-to-cost basis. In addition to Mahyco, the National Research Center for Biotechnology at the Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI) is also experimenting with Bt Brinjal. They developed a Bt eggplant using a Cry1Ab gene that is claimed to control 70 percent of the fruit borer attack. This institute had taken up agronomic trials in a controlled environment in 1998/99, 1999/2000, and 2000/2001. In 2003 they were permitted to conduct field trials in five locations - Delhi, Karnal, Pune, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University and the Indian Institute of Horticultural Research. Another company called Bejo Sheetal company, based in Jalna, Maharashtra, is also working on Bt Brinjal. Brinjal in India India is the Centre of Origin for Brinjal or Eggplant. Brinjal has been cultivated in India for the last 4000 years or so and has many historical references in various languages. It is grown all over the country, year-round and is one of the most popular vegetables of India. The area under cultivation is estimated to be around 5 lakh hectares. The total production stands at around 82 lakh metric tonnes. It is mainly grown in small plots as a cash crop by farmers. The average yields of Brinjal in India are reported to be around 200 to 350 quintals per hectare. The main growing areas are in the states of Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Orissa, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal. There are many local varieties in India, in addition to improved varieties and hybrids. Some of the public sector improved varieties include Pusa Kranthi, Pusa Purple Cluster, Syamala etc. Hybrids include Arka Navneet, Pusa Hybrid 6, Utkarsha, Pusa Hybrid 5 etc. from the public sector in addition to private sector hybrids. It is estimated that the damage caused by the Shoot & Fruit Borer in brinjal [which has been the major pest for the past two decades or so] ranges from 50 to 70% and in economic terms, it is estimated to be around $221 millions. It is to lend tolerance to this pest primarily that the Bt Brinjal has been developed. The promises and claims • It is reported that the average shoot damage in Bt Brinjal hybrids ranged from 0.04% to 0.3% as compared to 0.12% to 2.5% in non-Bt Brinjal hybrids. • The percentage of damaged fruits reportedly ranged from 2.5% to 20% in Bt Brinjal to 24% to 58% in non-Bt counterparts • No significant difference was noted between Bt Brinjal and Non-Bt Brinjal, as per the company which did biosafety tests like acute oral toxicity, sub-chronic oral toxicity in rats, allergenecity of protein to rats, germination, weediness and aggressiveness tests, soil micro-biota studies etc. • This will help small and marginal farmers from having to use 25-80 sprays of pesticides which are ineffective, says the company • The company claims that human health concerns due to pesticide use can be addressed with this transgenic Brinjal with its in-built tolerance • Company promises that through this in-built tolerance, there would be substantial increase in marketable yields. Higher yields would result in higher incomes for farmers, it is expected • The pricing of the seeds will be based on a cost-recovery model, making it affordable for all farmers, whether the seed comes from the private sector or the public sector, it is promised • Farmers will be able to continue to save and re-use their seed for the hybrids and varieties because of this arrangement, it is reported The reality The current reality is that the Indian regulatory regime with regard to GM crops has never been assessed thoroughly as to whether the right questions are being asked with regard to GM risk assessment in Indian conditions. As in other parts of the world, the current safety assessments are inadequate to catch most of the harmful effects from GM crops, that too in an early warning system. It is no longer in question that GM technology is unpredictable and imprecise, that too when released in an open environment situation. Therefore, there are many worrisome issues with regard to this Bt Brinjal too. Potential Health Hazards Several studies on Bt crops in particular and GM crops in general show that there are many potential health hazards in foods bio-engineered in this manner. GM-fed animals in various studies have shown that there are problems with growth, organ development and damage, immune responsiveness and so on. With Bt crops, a recent study from Madhya Pradesh in India shows adverse human health impacts in farm and factory workers with allergies caused by Bt Cotton. Itching skin, eruptions on the body, swollen faces etc., were also reported, correlated with levels of exposure to Bt Cotton. A study from Phillippines shows that people living next to Bt Corn crop fields had developed many mysterious symptoms, especially during pollination time. It has also been shown from studies elsewhere that genes inserted into GM food survive digestive processes and are transferred into the human body. They are known to have transferred themselves into intestinal bacteria too. Bt toxin had caused powerful immune responses and abnormal cell growth in mice. It has also been shown that all the Cry proteins in Bt crops have amino acid sequence similar to known allergens and are hence potential allergens. Potential Environmental Hazards [incl. Monoculture of Bt.] Resistance development in the target pest is predictable and therefore, even the companies promoting Bt Brinjal are already talking about resistance management. They say that a structured refuge of 5% of non-Bt Brinjal is needed as a strategy for resistance management. There have not been adequate tests done to assess the changes to the farm level ecology or stress intolerance of Bt Brinjal. In the case of Bt Cotton, however, it is now admitted in official records that Bt Cotton is more vulnerable to sucking pests than non-Bt counterparts, that it is more stress intolerant and so on. Disease incidence on Bt Cotton is also seen to be higher than on non-Bt Cotton. In the case of Bt Cotton, it is only after a few years of commercial cultivation that recommendations related to some changed management practices are being made by the industry and the government. It is obvious that the research phase of the development of the transgenic did not happen long enough or comprehensively enough for such lessons to emerge during the experimentation phase. Experiments then, are happening at the expense of farmers! Further, farmers from various parts of the country are reporting a decline in their soil productivity after growing Bt Cotton. While the regulatory tests related to Bt toxin presence and persistence in the case of Bt Cotton showed that the half-life of Cry1Ac protein in plant tissue was calculated at 41 days [which could then persist in the soil as other studies from elsewhere show], it is not clear how in the case of Bt Brinjal it is non-detectable in soil samples tested. Worldwide, it is generally accepted that more studies are needed to understand the impact of Bt toxin on soil ecology. In the case of pollen flow, it is well known that there is ample opportunity for cross pollination in the case of Brinjal. The rates of natural cross pollination may vary depending on genotype, location, insect activity etc. However, it has been reported that the extent of natural outcrossing is from 2 to 48% in the case of India. Further, it is not clear whether there is enough data on the wild and weedy plants that are either close relatives or have some degree of cross-compatibility with these brinjal varieties. The pollen flow studies on Bt Brinjal in India have been done only in one year [2002, even as the backcrossing programme was on?], in two locations, with reported outcrossing put at 1.46% and 2.7% in these two locations. Such pollen flow studies cannot obviously rely on data from one season and two locations. Studies elsewhere have shown that the likelihood of outcrossing from genetically engineered crops is much higher than in non-engineered crops. For obvious reasons, the same care that is taken for maintaining seed production standards [of 200 metres], has to be applied for the worst case scenario with Bt Brinjal. In such a case, will Bt Brinjal farmers, who are mostly small and marginal farmers, be able to conform to such guidelines? Let us also consider a scenario where our predominant pest management strategy relies more and more on one gene – the Bt toxin gene, across crops for a range of pests. Such a monoculture of the gene across crops and varieties is bound to spell doom sooner or later. Other issues • As already pointed out, the risk assessment in India does not compare the GM alternative with that of other alternatives like IPM/NPM/Organic etc. Further, the socio-economic risk assessment does not ask fundamental questions related to the interests of the poorest and most marginalized farmers. • Biosafety testing in India does not recognize the need for studying the medium- and long-term impacts of the GM technology. In the absence of such testing, we are only sitting on a potential disaster which would end up in a cocktail situation very soon, where even correlating an effect with a particular cause will become a challenging task. • No tests were conducted to check for the effect of Bt Brinjal on the crop raised subsequently; similarly, feeding tests did not include open grazing of the animals on Bt Brinjal plants [in the case of Bt Cotton, open grazing is being reported to cause morbidity and mortality in animals]. It is alarming to note that despite several shortcomings pointed out with biosafety testing in the past, almost the same set of tests with same protocols are being conducted with Bt Brinjal as in the case of Bt Cotton without giving the food crop the due importance and diligence it deserves for its potential adverse impacts. Even on the limited number of biosafety tests done, there is no independent safety testing undertaken by the vast public sector research establishment of the country. There is a serious and objectionable conflict of interest in the fact that majority of the tests were undertaken by the company promoting Bt Brinjal [pollen flow studies, Cry1Ac protein express, baseline susceptibility, protein estimation in cooked fruits, soil analysis, substantial equivalence studies etc. etc.]. Out of the various tests conducted, only 4 were conducted by public sector institutions. • With the promotion of GM agriculture in general and with Bt Brinjal in this case, the rights of non-GM farmers to stay GM-free get badly affected. This is because segregation and co-existence is impossible in this country. • While the companies are promising a pricing policy based on a cost-recovery principle, it has to be noted that such cost-recovery itself would be much higher than other seed accessible to farmers as of now. This involves both direct costs of research as well as indirect costs of aggressive promotion and PR that the companies would indulge in. The past history of MMB in the case of Bt Cotton shows that the company will go to the Courts if required to secure its rights related to pricing. Therefore, it is difficult to believe the promises on pricing. • In the past, several biosafety violations and unscientificities in trials were investigated by civil society organizations, including on Bt Brinjal. However, the Indian regulatory system showed its incompetency yet again by not fixing any liability on the violators and by not strengthening its research regulation regime to this day. Even though biosafety of the product was not cleared, trials were allowed to take place in farmers’ fields with no monitoring mechanism from the side of the GEAC and the state governments concerned. • There have been no independent tests conducted by the Ministry of Health, considering that this is an important food crop in the country. The entire approval process in the country is being pushed at high speed by the Department of Biotechnology, some bilateral agencies like the USAID and the private biotech industry. This is unacceptable since the primary stakeholders like farmers and consumers and some Ministries like Health are not being involved in these decision-making processes. Are there no alternatives to Bt Brinjal? The Bt Brinjal field trials have been compared with their non-Bt counterparts and some national checks to understand the benefits that might potentially accrue to the farmers. They have not been compared to other safer, inexpensive alternatives, however. There is a lot of experience in mechanical control as well as non-chemical IPM strategies within the Indian research system. Further, there is much experience of non-chemical brinjal cultivation in farmers’ fields by many practicing organic and NPM farmers in the country. Simple things like pheromone traps for mass trapping, sanitation of the field [timely removal and destruction of affected shoots & fruits], mechanical barriers, use of some local plant extracts for pest control etc., have all worked well for farmers. However, the evaluation of Bt Brinjal is not taking place against such options as part of the Risk Assessment. Given below is tabulated information from the ICAR-supervised, Mahyco-commissioned multilocational trials in their second year [2005-06] for five hybrids and in their first year for 3 other hybrids, compared with their non-Bt counterparts and with some popular checks. The table also has comparative figures from experiences with IPM packages applied in some locations. Bt Brinjal (mean of Mahyco hybrids from 8 locations) – 2005-06 Non-Bt counterparts (mean of non-Bt counterpart hybrids from 8 locations) Two checks (mean of Pusa Hybrid 6 and Navkiran) IPM by GAU* (two locations in farmers’ fields) – 2001 IPM by ANGRAU** (at VRS, Hyderabad) 2000-02) Non-Chemical IPM by OUAT*** (farmers’ fields) – Summer 2004 13.5% (5 hybrids in Year II) 28.7% (5 hybrids in Year II) 29.4% (5 hybrids in Year II) (Cumulative) Fruit Damage 16.02 (3 hybrids in Year I) 27.72% (3 hybrids in Year I) 27.69% (3 hybrids in Year I) 10.64% 17.72% 13.07+/-7.54 231.69 q/ha (5 hybrids in Year II) 157.08 q/ha (5 hybrids in Year II) 182.15 q/ha (5 hybrids in Year II) Marketable yield 223.39 q/ha (3 hybrids in Year II) 190.36 q/ha (3 hybrids in Year II) 192.86 q/ha (3 hybrids in Year II) 266.25 q/ha 203.98 q/ha 214.5+/-16.3 q/ha * Technical Bulletin 28 – “Development of an IPM strategy for EFSB in South Asia” – AVRDC, 2003 ** Treatment 1 – NSKE-Profenofos-Cypermethrin, on Bhagyamathi brinjal, as reported by Chiranjeevi et al (2005) *** Dept. of Entomology, College of Agriculture, OUAT, Rath & Dash (2005) It has to be noted that the data presented by ICAR on Bt Brinjal was not statistically analysed. For instance, the yields across hybrids in the Hyderabad test centre were only 12.04 quintals per hectare. However, the average marketable yield from all locations (231.69 q/ha) conceals this figure. From six centres, the yields were lower than this average, which got skewed by high yield reported from one centre. Similar are dangerous conclusions that can be drawn with data on disease incidence if such conclusions are based on the mean figures being presented. It is also interesting to note that in the ICAR trials, in the case of all the 8 hybrids of Bt Brinjal, their mean fruit weight is far lower than their checks. As the above table shows and as practicing NPM and organic farmers from various parts of the country would testify, pest management in Brinjal does not need either pesticides or GM seeds when safer, cheaper alternatives in the control of farmers are available. What is needed is a public support system for such alternatives to be promoted, spread and practiced. Such alternatives inevitably show that the farmers benefit out of increased net incomes, derived from internalizing various inputs including Seed. References: • Development of Fruit & Shoot Borer Tolerant Brinjal, paper presented to GEAC on May 22, 2006 by M/S Mahyco • XXIV All India Coordinated Research Project (VC) Annual Report 2005-06, pp 164-174, 2006 • Rath LK and Dash B, “Evaluation of a Non-Chemical IPM Module for the Management of Brinjal Shoot & Fruit Borer”, Veg. Sci.32(2): 207-209, 2005 • Chiranjeevi CH, Narayanamma M and Neeraja G, “Evaluation of IPM Module for the management of Brinjal Shoot & Fruit Borer”, Veg. Sci. 32(1): 105-106, 2005 • ABSPII – USAID and Cornell University, “Fruit and Shoot Borer-Resistant Eggplant-Fact Sheet”, 2005 • Gupta, Ashish et al, “Impact of Bt Cotton on Farmers’ Health”, Investigation Report, 2005 • “Background Note on Bt Cotton cultivation in India”, MoEF website, Government of India, 2002 • “Development of an IPM strategy for Eggplant Fruit & Shoot Borer in South Asia”, Technical Bulletin 28, AVRDC, 2003 Main Source of this artical -Bt Brinjal – a Briefing Paper Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, June 2006

Bt Brinjal

February 8, 2010 9:18 pm by Ashutosh Pandey

What is Bt Brinjal? Bt Brinjal is a transgenic brinjal created out of inserting a gene [Cry 1Ac] from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis into Brinjal. The insertion of the gene into the Brinjal cell in young cotyledons has been done through an Agrobacterium-mediated vector, along with other genes like promoters, markers etc. This is said to give the Brinjal plant resistance against lepidopteran insects like the Brinjal Fruit and Shoot Borer (Leucinodes orbonalis) and Fruit Borer (Helicoverpa armigera). It is reported that upon ingestion of the Bt toxin by the insect, there would be disruption of digestive processes, ultimately resulting in the death of the insect. Bt Brinjal is being developed in India by M/s Mahyco [Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company]. Now, the company wants to take up large scale field trials with the permission of the GEAC in 2006-07. The importance of this development can be understood from the fact that no GM Brinjal has been released for an advanced stage of field trials in open conditions anywhere in the world and that this is the first time that GEAC could be giving permission for large scale open trials for a food crop in India – in a country which has repeatedly proven itself incapable of regulating GM technology and has allowed contamination as a routine affair. The proliferation of illegal Bt Cotton in the country is a good testimony to serious irreversible lapses that could happen at the trials stage. Needless to say, a vegetable, more than other food items, goes through very little processing and is directly consumed through cooking and therefore requires great caution in decision-making. The transformation work on Bt Brinjal started in Year 2000. Biosafety tests like pollen flow studies, acute oral toxicity etc., were taken up along with back-crossing programme from 2002. After two years of greenhouse evaluation, in 2004, multi-locational field trials were conducted in 11 locations with five hybrids [Mahyco’s MHB-4 Bt Brinjal, MHB-9 Bt Brinjal, MHB-10 Bt Brinjal, MHB-80 Bt Brinjal and MHB-99 Bt Brinjal]. This was also the year when ICAR [Indian Council for Agricultural Research] took up trials with the same hybrids under the All India Coordinated Research Project on Vegetable Cultivation in 11 locations. While the ICAR second year trials continued for these five hybrids in 2005, three more new hybrids were assessed by the company [MHB-11 Bt Brinjal, MHB-39 Bt Brinjal and MHB-112 Bt Brinjal] and ICAR in the same year in eleven centres. Mahyco has sub-licensed the technology, as part of the USAID-supported, Cornell University-led ABSPII project [consortium of public and private sector institutions] to Tamil Nadu Agricultural University (TNAU), The University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad and The Indian Institute of Vegetable Research, Varanasi (IIVR). This transfer of technology was apparently free-of-cost, with the public sector institutes allowed to develop, breed and distribute their own Bt Brinjal varieties on a cost-to-cost basis. In addition to Mahyco, the National Research Center for Biotechnology at the Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI) is also experimenting with Bt Brinjal. They developed a Bt eggplant using a Cry1Ab gene that is claimed to control 70 percent of the fruit borer attack. This institute had taken up agronomic trials in a controlled environment in 1998/99, 1999/2000, and 2000/2001. In 2003 they were permitted to conduct field trials in five locations - Delhi, Karnal, Pune, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University and the Indian Institute of Horticultural Research. Another company called Bejo Sheetal company, based in Jalna, Maharashtra, is also working on Bt Brinjal. Brinjal in India India is the Centre of Origin for Brinjal or Eggplant. Brinjal has been cultivated in India for the last 4000 years or so and has many historical references in various languages. It is grown all over the country, year-round and is one of the most popular vegetables of India. The area under cultivation is estimated to be around 5 lakh hectares. The total production stands at around 82 lakh metric tonnes. It is mainly grown in small plots as a cash crop by farmers. The average yields of Brinjal in India are reported to be around 200 to 350 quintals per hectare. The main growing areas are in the states of Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Orissa, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal. There are many local varieties in India, in addition to improved varieties and hybrids. Some of the public sector improved varieties include Pusa Kranthi, Pusa Purple Cluster, Syamala etc. Hybrids include Arka Navneet, Pusa Hybrid 6, Utkarsha, Pusa Hybrid 5 etc. from the public sector in addition to private sector hybrids. It is estimated that the damage caused by the Shoot & Fruit Borer in brinjal [which has been the major pest for the past two decades or so] ranges from 50 to 70% and in economic terms, it is estimated to be around $221 millions. It is to lend tolerance to this pest primarily that the Bt Brinjal has been developed. The promises and claims • It is reported that the average shoot damage in Bt Brinjal hybrids ranged from 0.04% to 0.3% as compared to 0.12% to 2.5% in non-Bt Brinjal hybrids. • The percentage of damaged fruits reportedly ranged from 2.5% to 20% in Bt Brinjal to 24% to 58% in non-Bt counterparts • No significant difference was noted between Bt Brinjal and Non-Bt Brinjal, as per the company which did biosafety tests like acute oral toxicity, sub-chronic oral toxicity in rats, allergenecity of protein to rats, germination, weediness and aggressiveness tests, soil micro-biota studies etc. • This will help small and marginal farmers from having to use 25-80 sprays of pesticides which are ineffective, says the company • The company claims that human health concerns due to pesticide use can be addressed with this transgenic Brinjal with its in-built tolerance • Company promises that through this in-built tolerance, there would be substantial increase in marketable yields. Higher yields would result in higher incomes for farmers, it is expected • The pricing of the seeds will be based on a cost-recovery model, making it affordable for all farmers, whether the seed comes from the private sector or the public sector, it is promised • Farmers will be able to continue to save and re-use their seed for the hybrids and varieties because of this arrangement, it is reported The reality The current reality is that the Indian regulatory regime with regard to GM crops has never been assessed thoroughly as to whether the right questions are being asked with regard to GM risk assessment in Indian conditions. As in other parts of the world, the current safety assessments are inadequate to catch most of the harmful effects from GM crops, that too in an early warning system. It is no longer in question that GM technology is unpredictable and imprecise, that too when released in an open environment situation. Therefore, there are many worrisome issues with regard to this Bt Brinjal too. Potential Health Hazards Several studies on Bt crops in particular and GM crops in general show that there are many potential health hazards in foods bio-engineered in this manner. GM-fed animals in various studies have shown that there are problems with growth, organ development and damage, immune responsiveness and so on. With Bt crops, a recent study from Madhya Pradesh in India shows adverse human health impacts in farm and factory workers with allergies caused by Bt Cotton. Itching skin, eruptions on the body, swollen faces etc., were also reported, correlated with levels of exposure to Bt Cotton. A study from Phillippines shows that people living next to Bt Corn crop fields had developed many mysterious symptoms, especially during pollination time. It has also been shown from studies elsewhere that genes inserted into GM food survive digestive processes and are transferred into the human body. They are known to have transferred themselves into intestinal bacteria too. Bt toxin had caused powerful immune responses and abnormal cell growth in mice. It has also been shown that all the Cry proteins in Bt crops have amino acid sequence similar to known allergens and are hence potential allergens. Potential Environmental Hazards [incl. Monoculture of Bt.] Resistance development in the target pest is predictable and therefore, even the companies promoting Bt Brinjal are already talking about resistance management. They say that a structured refuge of 5% of non-Bt Brinjal is needed as a strategy for resistance management. There have not been adequate tests done to assess the changes to the farm level ecology or stress intolerance of Bt Brinjal. In the case of Bt Cotton, however, it is now admitted in official records that Bt Cotton is more vulnerable to sucking pests than non-Bt counterparts, that it is more stress intolerant and so on. Disease incidence on Bt Cotton is also seen to be higher than on non-Bt Cotton. In the case of Bt Cotton, it is only after a few years of commercial cultivation that recommendations related to some changed management practices are being made by the industry and the government. It is obvious that the research phase of the development of the transgenic did not happen long enough or comprehensively enough for such lessons to emerge during the experimentation phase. Experiments then, are happening at the expense of farmers! Further, farmers from various parts of the country are reporting a decline in their soil productivity after growing Bt Cotton. While the regulatory tests related to Bt toxin presence and persistence in the case of Bt Cotton showed that the half-life of Cry1Ac protein in plant tissue was calculated at 41 days [which could then persist in the soil as other studies from elsewhere show], it is not clear how in the case of Bt Brinjal it is non-detectable in soil samples tested. Worldwide, it is generally accepted that more studies are needed to understand the impact of Bt toxin on soil ecology. In the case of pollen flow, it is well known that there is ample opportunity for cross pollination in the case of Brinjal. The rates of natural cross pollination may vary depending on genotype, location, insect activity etc. However, it has been reported that the extent of natural outcrossing is from 2 to 48% in the case of India. Further, it is not clear whether there is enough data on the wild and weedy plants that are either close relatives or have some degree of cross-compatibility with these brinjal varieties. The pollen flow studies on Bt Brinjal in India have been done only in one year [2002, even as the backcrossing programme was on?], in two locations, with reported outcrossing put at 1.46% and 2.7% in these two locations. Such pollen flow studies cannot obviously rely on data from one season and two locations. Studies elsewhere have shown that the likelihood of outcrossing from genetically engineered crops is much higher than in non-engineered crops. For obvious reasons, the same care that is taken for maintaining seed production standards [of 200 metres], has to be applied for the worst case scenario with Bt Brinjal. In such a case, will Bt Brinjal farmers, who are mostly small and marginal farmers, be able to conform to such guidelines? Let us also consider a scenario where our predominant pest management strategy relies more and more on one gene – the Bt toxin gene, across crops for a range of pests. Such a monoculture of the gene across crops and varieties is bound to spell doom sooner or later. Other issues • As already pointed out, the risk assessment in India does not compare the GM alternative with that of other alternatives like IPM/NPM/Organic etc. Further, the socio-economic risk assessment does not ask fundamental questions related to the interests of the poorest and most marginalized farmers. • Biosafety testing in India does not recognize the need for studying the medium- and long-term impacts of the GM technology. In the absence of such testing, we are only sitting on a potential disaster which would end up in a cocktail situation very soon, where even correlating an effect with a particular cause will become a challenging task. • No tests were conducted to check for the effect of Bt Brinjal on the crop raised subsequently; similarly, feeding tests did not include open grazing of the animals on Bt Brinjal plants [in the case of Bt Cotton, open grazing is being reported to cause morbidity and mortality in animals]. It is alarming to note that despite several shortcomings pointed out with biosafety testing in the past, almost the same set of tests with same protocols are being conducted with Bt Brinjal as in the case of Bt Cotton without giving the food crop the due importance and diligence it deserves for its potential adverse impacts. Even on the limited number of biosafety tests done, there is no independent safety testing undertaken by the vast public sector research establishment of the country. There is a serious and objectionable conflict of interest in the fact that majority of the tests were undertaken by the company promoting Bt Brinjal [pollen flow studies, Cry1Ac protein express, baseline susceptibility, protein estimation in cooked fruits, soil analysis, substantial equivalence studies etc. etc.]. Out of the various tests conducted, only 4 were conducted by public sector institutions. • With the promotion of GM agriculture in general and with Bt Brinjal in this case, the rights of non-GM farmers to stay GM-free get badly affected. This is because segregation and co-existence is impossible in this country. • While the companies are promising a pricing policy based on a cost-recovery principle, it has to be noted that such cost-recovery itself would be much higher than other seed accessible to farmers as of now. This involves both direct costs of research as well as indirect costs of aggressive promotion and PR that the companies would indulge in. The past history of MMB in the case of Bt Cotton shows that the company will go to the Courts if required to secure its rights related to pricing. Therefore, it is difficult to believe the promises on pricing. • In the past, several biosafety violations and unscientificities in trials were investigated by civil society organizations, including on Bt Brinjal. However, the Indian regulatory system showed its incompetency yet again by not fixing any liability on the violators and by not strengthening its research regulation regime to this day. Even though biosafety of the product was not cleared, trials were allowed to take place in farmers’ fields with no monitoring mechanism from the side of the GEAC and the state governments concerned. • There have been no independent tests conducted by the Ministry of Health, considering that this is an important food crop in the country. The entire approval process in the country is being pushed at high speed by the Department of Biotechnology, some bilateral agencies like the USAID and the private biotech industry. This is unacceptable since the primary stakeholders like farmers and consumers and some Ministries like Health are not being involved in these decision-making processes. Are there no alternatives to Bt Brinjal? The Bt Brinjal field trials have been compared with their non-Bt counterparts and some national checks to understand the benefits that might potentially accrue to the farmers. They have not been compared to other safer, inexpensive alternatives, however. There is a lot of experience in mechanical control as well as non-chemical IPM strategies within the Indian research system. Further, there is much experience of non-chemical brinjal cultivation in farmers’ fields by many practicing organic and NPM farmers in the country. Simple things like pheromone traps for mass trapping, sanitation of the field [timely removal and destruction of affected shoots & fruits], mechanical barriers, use of some local plant extracts for pest control etc., have all worked well for farmers. However, the evaluation of Bt Brinjal is not taking place against such options as part of the Risk Assessment. Given below is tabulated information from the ICAR-supervised, Mahyco-commissioned multilocational trials in their second year [2005-06] for five hybrids and in their first year for 3 other hybrids, compared with their non-Bt counterparts and with some popular checks. The table also has comparative figures from experiences with IPM packages applied in some locations. Bt Brinjal (mean of Mahyco hybrids from 8 locations) – 2005-06 Non-Bt counterparts (mean of non-Bt counterpart hybrids from 8 locations) Two checks (mean of Pusa Hybrid 6 and Navkiran) IPM by GAU* (two locations in farmers’ fields) – 2001 IPM by ANGRAU** (at VRS, Hyderabad) 2000-02) Non-Chemical IPM by OUAT*** (farmers’ fields) – Summer 2004 13.5% (5 hybrids in Year II) 28.7% (5 hybrids in Year II) 29.4% (5 hybrids in Year II) (Cumulative) Fruit Damage 16.02 (3 hybrids in Year I) 27.72% (3 hybrids in Year I) 27.69% (3 hybrids in Year I) 10.64% 17.72% 13.07+/-7.54 231.69 q/ha (5 hybrids in Year II) 157.08 q/ha (5 hybrids in Year II) 182.15 q/ha (5 hybrids in Year II) Marketable yield 223.39 q/ha (3 hybrids in Year II) 190.36 q/ha (3 hybrids in Year II) 192.86 q/ha (3 hybrids in Year II) 266.25 q/ha 203.98 q/ha 214.5+/-16.3 q/ha * Technical Bulletin 28 – “Development of an IPM strategy for EFSB in South Asia” – AVRDC, 2003 ** Treatment 1 – NSKE-Profenofos-Cypermethrin, on Bhagyamathi brinjal, as reported by Chiranjeevi et al (2005) *** Dept. of Entomology, College of Agriculture, OUAT, Rath & Dash (2005) It has to be noted that the data presented by ICAR on Bt Brinjal was not statistically analysed. For instance, the yields across hybrids in the Hyderabad test centre were only 12.04 quintals per hectare. However, the average marketable yield from all locations (231.69 q/ha) conceals this figure. From six centres, the yields were lower than this average, which got skewed by high yield reported from one centre. Similar are dangerous conclusions that can be drawn with data on disease incidence if such conclusions are based on the mean figures being presented. It is also interesting to note that in the ICAR trials, in the case of all the 8 hybrids of Bt Brinjal, their mean fruit weight is far lower than their checks. As the above table shows and as practicing NPM and organic farmers from various parts of the country would testify, pest management in Brinjal does not need either pesticides or GM seeds when safer, cheaper alternatives in the control of farmers are available. What is needed is a public support system for such alternatives to be promoted, spread and practiced. Such alternatives inevitably show that the farmers benefit out of increased net incomes, derived from internalizing various inputs including Seed. References: • Development of Fruit & Shoot Borer Tolerant Brinjal, paper presented to GEAC on May 22, 2006 by M/S Mahyco • XXIV All India Coordinated Research Project (VC) Annual Report 2005-06, pp 164-174, 2006 • Rath LK and Dash B, “Evaluation of a Non-Chemical IPM Module for the Management of Brinjal Shoot & Fruit Borer”, Veg. Sci.32(2): 207-209, 2005 • Chiranjeevi CH, Narayanamma M and Neeraja G, “Evaluation of IPM Module for the management of Brinjal Shoot & Fruit Borer”, Veg. Sci. 32(1): 105-106, 2005 • ABSPII – USAID and Cornell University, “Fruit and Shoot Borer-Resistant Eggplant-Fact Sheet”, 2005 • Gupta, Ashish et al, “Impact of Bt Cotton on Farmers’ Health”, Investigation Report, 2005 • “Background Note on Bt Cotton cultivation in India”, MoEF website, Government of India, 2002 • “Development of an IPM strategy for Eggplant Fruit & Shoot Borer in South Asia”, Technical Bulletin 28, AVRDC, 2003 Main Source of this artical -Bt Brinjal – a Briefing Paper Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, June 2006