Regulatory options for genetically modified crops in India - Choudhary - 2014

Review article

...In summary, this review identifies three fundamental flaws in the current [Indian] biosafety regulatory framework in the form of the EPA Rules 1989 that need to be rectified for the Indian regulatory system to function in a cost-effective and time-bound manner:

Firstly, GM crops are categorized as ‘inherently harmful’ under the ‘hazardous substance’ provision of the Environmental Protection Act 1986, which is scientifically incorrect and gives rise to misperceptions about the safety and potential risk of GM crops to health and environment.

Secondly, the EPA Rules 1989 to regulate GM crops were issued not by a ‘legislative act’ but by an ‘administrative order’ that remains untenable and liable to change with the desire of MOEF, which affects the predictability of the regulations and ignores the need to take into account the views and policies of other concerned ministries and the Parliament of India.

Finally, the Union environment ministry administers the regulation of GM crops in India whereas agriculture falls under the respective State(s). This often confronts approvals posing a ‘Union Vs State’ conflict in decision-making on GM crops.

Plant Biotechnology Journal (2014) 12, pp. 135–146
Regulatory options for genetically modified crops in India
Bhagirath Choudhary, Godelieve Gheysen Jeroen Buysse, Piet van der Meer and Sylvia Burssens

@ Regulatory options for genetically modified crops in India - Choudhary - 2014 - Plant Biotechnology Journal - Wiley Online Library:

Lessons for science communicators from the Climate Debate-- navigating Politicized Science and Scientized Politics

Stephen Schneider Lecture (GC43E 01) - AGU 2013 Fall Meeting - YouTube: "

Gavin A. Schmidt, deputy director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, talks about the challenges of communicating climate science and advocating climate policy choices. H/T Andy Revkin
Lessons for biology communicators.

Special Interests Outvote Science: Political Stalemate over EU Biofuel Policy Continues

QUOTE from IFPRI portal:

The “food vs. fuel” debate came no closer to a resolution last week, as Energy ministers from the European Union’s 28 member states failed to agree on a compromise limiting the use of transport fuels made from food crops such as rapeseed and wheat, so-called first generation biofuels.

The EU’s current policy requires 10 percent of transport fuels to come from renewable sources by 2020; with current technologies and the low prevalence of electric cars, this amount would be almost entirely derived from liquid biofuels, mainly based on food crops. This mandate has come under fire for putting energy needs before food security, diverting necessary food crops away from hungry mouths and into gas tanks...

In July 2013, the European Parliament’s Environmental (ENVI) Committee followed the EC’s lead and voted to cap the transportation industry’s use of first-generation biofuels at 5.5 percent (a slight modification to the 5 percent proposed by the Commission) and require reporting of any indirect land use changes (ILUC) caused by biofuel production. When forests and other pristine lands are cleared for new farmland to expand biofuel production, the carbon stored in their soil and accumulated biomass is released, resulting in a net increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. These ILUC effects could lower biofuels' environmental benefits... More @ Political Stalemate over EU Biofuel Policy Continues | Food Security Portal: