Dominic Glover, has set out to answer. His new paper investigates the "simultaneous production of a technology widely recognised as having limited relevance to poverty alleviation alongside a narrative that strongly implied it was intended and designed to achieve that goal".A decade ago Monsanto ran an advertising campaign in Europe claiming: "Worrying about starving future generations won't feed them. Food biotechnology will."
Made by Monsanto: the Corporate Shaping of GM Crops as a Technology for the Poor, by Dominic Glover, 06 June 2009,

Read more: Made by Monsanto: the Corporate Shaping of GM Crops as a Technology for the Poor

The current dominant discourse about GM crops in India is willing to accept blindly that Bt cotton is the reason for yield increases in cotton in India.

The alternative analysis will show that large-scale shift in seed sources, shift from unirrigated to irrigated cotton, good monsoons, ow pest incidence, etc, have all contributed to cotton yield increases in some years in some states of the country, coupled with increased use of chemical fertilisers.
Incidentally, while the biotech industry supported by un-analytical media hypes up Bt cotton for everything good with cotton in the country, the official data and reports tucked away here and there are much more pragmatic and realistic with their analysis. -"Bt Cotton and the Myth of Enhanced Yields" by Kavita Kuruganti, Economic & Political Weekly EPW May 30, 2009 

The Health Risks of GM Foods:

Summary and Debate

The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods

Section 1: Evidence of reactions in animals and humans.

1.1 GM Potatoes Damages Rats (see full content)

1.2 Rats Fed GMO Tomatoes got bleeding stomachs, several died

1.3 Rats Fed Bt Corn had multiple health problems

1.4 Mice Fed GM Bt Potatoes had intestinal damage

1.5 Workers exposed to Bt cotton developed allergies

1.6 Sheep died after grazing in Bt cotton fields

1.7 Inhaled Bt corn pollen may have triggered disease in humans

1.8 Farmers report pigs and cows became sterile from GM corn

1.9 Twelve cows in Germany died mysteriously when fed Bt corn

1.10 Mice fed Roundup Ready soy had liver cell problems

1.11 Mice fed Roundup Ready soy had problems with the pancreas

1.12 Mice fed Roundup Ready soy had unexplained changes in testicular cells

1.13 Roundup Ready Soy Changed Cell Metabolism in Rabbit Organs

1.14 Most offspring of rats fed Roundup Ready soy died within three weeks (see full content)

1.15 Soy allergies skyrocketed in the UK, soon after GM soy was introduced

1.16 Rats fed Roundup Ready canola had heavier livers

1.17 Twice the number of chickens died when fed Liberty Link corn

1.18 GM peas generated an allergic-type inflammatory response in mice

1.19 Eyewitness reports: Animals avoid GMOs

1.20 A GM food supplement killed about 100 people

Section 2: Gene insertion disrupts the DNA and can create unpredictable health problems.

2.1 Foreign genes disrupt the DNA at the insertion site.

2.2 Growing GM crops using tissue culture can create hundreds or thousands of DNA mutations.

2.3 Gene insertion creates genome-wide changes in gene expression.

2.4 The promoter may accidentally switch on harmful genes.

2.5 The promoter might switch on a dormant virus in plants.

2.6 The promoter might create genetic instability and mutations.

2.7 Genetic engineering activates mobile DNA, called transposons, which generate mutations.

2.8 Novel RNA may be harmful to humans and their offspring.

2.9 Roundup Ready soybeans produce unintentional RNA variations.

2.10 Changes in proteins can alter thousands of natural chemicals in plants, increasing toxins or reducing phytonutrients

2.11 GM crops have altered levels of nutrients and toxins.

Section 3: The protein produced by the inserted gene may create problems.

3.1 A gene from a Brazil nut carried allergies into soybeans.

3.2 GM proteins in soy, corn and papaya may be allergens.

3.3 Bt crops may create allergies and illness.

3.4 The Bt in crops is more toxic than the Bt spray.

3.5 StarLink corn’s built-in pesticide has a “medium likelihood” of being an allergen.

3.6 Pollen-sterilizing barnase in GM crops may cause kidney damage.

3.7 High lysine corn contains increased toxins and may retard growth.

3.8 Cooking high lysine corn may create disease-promoting toxins.

3.9 Disease-resistant crops may promote human viruses and other diseases.

Section 4: The foreign protein may be different than what is intended.

4.1 GM proteins may be misfolded or have added molecules.

4.2 Transgenes may be altered during insertion.

4.3 Transgenes may be unstable, and rearrange over time.

4.4 Transgenes may create more than one protein.

4.5 Weather, environmental stress and genetic disposition can significantly change gene expression.

4.6 Genetic engineering can disrupt the complex relationships governing gene expression.

Section 5: Transfer of genes to gut bacteria, internal organs, or viruses.

5.1 In spite of industry claims, transgenes survive the digestion system and can wander.

5.2 Transgene design facilitates transfer into gut bacteria.

5.3 Transgenes may proliferate in gut bacteria over the long-term.

5.4 Transgene transfer to human gut bacteria is confirmed.

5.5 GM foods might create antibiotic-resistant diseases.

5.6 The promoter can also transfer, and may switch on random genes or viruses.

5.7 If Bt genes transfer, they could turn our gut bacteria into living pesticide factories.

5.8 Genes may transfer to bacteria in the mouth or throat.

5.9 Transfer of viral genes into gut microorganisms may create toxins and weaken peoples’ viral defenses.

Section 6: GM crops may increase environmental toxins and bioaccumulate toxins in the food chain.

6.1 Glufosinate-tolerant crops may produce herbicide “inside” our intestines.

6.2 Herbicide-tolerant crops increase herbicide use and residues in food.

6.3 Tiny amounts of herbicide may act as endocrine disruptors.

6.4 GM crops may accumulate environmental toxins or concentrate toxins in milk and meat of GM-fed animals.

6.5 Disease-resistant crops may promote new plant viruses, which carry risks for humans.

The Government Accountability Office said in a report that more incidents of unauthorized releases could have occurred in the United States and simply gone unnoticed. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Food and Drug Administration and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulate GMO crops. "As pointed out by GAO, the three regulatory agencies still do not adequately coordinate their regulation of the food safety or environmental consequences of these crops," the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit health advocacy group, said.

[ C.eldoc1/KICS/081205zzz1B.html]

Jeffrey Smith's first book, Seeds of Deception, is the world’s bestselling book on genetically modified (GM) food. His second, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, provides overwhelming evidence that GMOs are unsafe and should never have been introduced.

He’s also the executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology, whose Campaign for Healthier Eating in America is designed to create the tipping point of consumer rejection of GMOs, forcing them out of our food supply. As a major force riling against GM foods, Smith is responsible for limiting the spread of GM crops in the US, just like others have successfully done in Europe.

In addition to his books he has also created two videos: Hidden Dangers in Kids' Meals, and Your Milk on Drugs, Just Say No. -- Taken from mercola.com

Up to date online collation of news articles relating to the release of GMO food in India, please review: http://newsrack.in/stories/indiatogether/Agriculture/2.

More information on the implications of releasing GMO in India based on the GEAC's October approval is available at: www.esgindia.org

To GM or not to GM: That is the Big Question?

There are two sides to the GM story as it is unfolding today. Critical Concerns, CED, 14th June 2009

Analyses on Bt cotton in India, China and Africa in the context of the overall Q of whether GM crops are pro -poor: and if not why has this claim proved to be so resilient. These analyses confine themselves to productivity, costs, insect shifts, pesticide use, socio-agr effects and farmer net gains, not health and environemental issues by definition. -Contributed by Kavita K.

Undying Promise: Agricultural Biotechnology’s Pro-poor Narrative, Ten Years on

by Dominic Glover, STEPS Centre, 2009