Battle against GMOs is socio-economic too

By and large, the world is still undecided over the issue of genetically modified organisms (GMO). While countries in the EU have banned such products, countries like China, Australia and Argentina continue to remain ambivalent, waiting for more research to prove that such products are harmful for humans. Meanwhile, Canadian microbiologist and NRI Shiv Chopra took a stand against GMOs and was the first to blow the whistle on the Canadian public service by refusing to approve a bovine growth hormone in 1998. This act not only cost him his job, but also forced him into fighting a long and ongoing battle against Health Canada, which also included a complaint of racial discrimination. DNA caught up with the author of Corrupt to the Core: Memoirs of a Health Canada Scientist at the Gujarat Vidyapith, where he delivered the Kamalnayan Bajaj Memorial Lecture.

Why should we be weary of GMOs?
Most people have heard about how GMOs can affect their health, cause cancer, reproductive disorders, diabetes and the likes. This is true, but the adverse consequences of GMOs are actually even more frightening. Take the example of a bacteria-modified plant. The plant is injected with bacteria to make it more robust, but because of this, the plant actually thinks it is a bacteria and spreads toxins in the area around it, killing other plants and organisms like earthworms. Also, seedlings of GM crops become the intellectual properties of big corporation - this renders farmers incapable of producing their own seedlings. The farmer is thus not only dealing with land that is deteriorating in quality by the minute, but also being beholden to big corporations for seedlings. The farmer will eventually be unable to sustain himself, and big corporations will buy up his land. The battle against GMOs is not just a battle of health, but is also an economic and social battle.
 
Will the battle be fought by boycotting GMO products?
I don’t believe that not buying is the answer to the problem. Neither is violence an answer, which took place in Karnataka. People have to eat, and for many items, GMO products are the only options. It is our right to consume food, produced naturally, and we should assert our right through the stern enforcement of regulation.

How do you suggest we push for such regulations?
For the sake of public health, India took a stand against American methods of food production, at the World Trade Organisation’s Doha round. But, at home, the same people are turning a blind eye to the rampant use of oxytocin in dairy cows. We need to influence the big lobbyists such as the Ambanis and the Tatas to recognise that 70% of India’s population are engaged in agriculture and can meet the demand for organic food in the EU.

What is your take on the argument, ‘turning our backs on GMOs is turning our backs on the world’s starving population’?
This is a false claim. Despite India currently producing more food than it actually needs, hunger still exists not because of lack of food, but because of corruption which prevents the food reaching the people in need. Instead of giving loans for sustainable farming, the government is giving loans for farmers to buy chemical fertilisers which destroy the land and render it useless. Over 20,000 farmers have committed suicide because of their inability to repay such loans.

Portions of the Canadian press have accused you of being a "race-obsessed paranoiac". Has this undermined your reputation as a scientist?
The Human Rights Tribunal (HRT), in its September 2008 ruling, found that I was subjected to racial discrimination at work. What happened was boardroom racism, where my objections were met with statements like ‘Oh he is foreign, he does not understand how things work here.’ Gandhiji said that with rights come responsibilities and my legal duty as a public servant at Health Canada was to make sure that public health was not jeopardised.