Has India's outlook towards GM changed or is it just a flash in the pan?

Quick decision-making has pumped up the scientific community, particularly for those who work in the field of agriculture sciences

In the last few months, India has made some path-breaking moves towards decluttering its agriculture research and innovation scenario.

First, it allowed some types of genome-edited crops to get an easier regulatory pathway, following it up with the recent ‘environmental release’ of genetically engineered mustard, while there are already talks that another long-pending issue of approval for Htbt cotton could also get approved soon.

In between, the government provided much-needed clarity on the widely-used herbicide glyphosate, restricting its usage and limiting it to just pest control operators.

The last decision on glyphosate has although been widely criticized by the user industry on the ground that it will make its usage very difficult for the common farmer and thus harm crops.

Glyphosate is widely used in tea plantations in India where it is used to control herbicides. Glyphosate is also used in non-crop areas to control unwanted growth.

Its usage saw a manifold rise, once Ht BT cotton started getting illegally cultivated in India.

The quick succession in which the decisions have been taken has pumped up the scientific community and given them reasons to celebrate something which has seldom happened in the past, particularly for those who work in the field of agriculture sciences.

The Office of Principal Scientific Advisor to the Prime Minister, former scientific heads, and chiefs of big research bodies have openly and gladly welcomed the recent decisions, which is another signal of how eagerly the approvals were awaited.

“Yes, there seems to be a change in outlook towards the new tools of farming. Also, it must be remembered that unless we adopt these new tools for breeding like genome editing our barriers in breeding high-yielding varieties will continue and we won’t be able to meet the challenges of changing order,” S K Malhotra, former agriculture commissioner, Government of India and a leading voice in the field of agriculture sciences told Business Standard.

He said there were apprehensions earlier, but now it seems floodgates have been opened.

Some scientists said that the Prime Minister’s clarion call ‘Jai Vigyan’ and ‘Jai Anushandhan’ is finally finding its feet in the field of agriculture sciences.

However, the approvals and clearances have also created fears of a repeat of the events that have happened in the past with genetically engineered crops when clearances were taken back in the face of persistent pressures from the anti-GM lobby.

“A situation like what happened in 2017 and even in the past could happen this time, remember there could be many slips between the cup and lip but we are hopeful,” another scientist working in the field of agriculture said.

The critics and anti-GM activists said that the GEAC approval for 'environmental release' has little meaning and the final decision still rests with the government to allow GM mustard or not. And, to say a finality has been reached on the subject is fallacious. 

"In 2010, a Gazette Notification was issued by the Government of India's Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change, renaming GEAC, converting it from being a Genetic Engineering Approval Committee to Genetic Engineering 'Appraisal' Committee. This was not a mere gesture, but a meaningful policy decision, given the many irresponsible decisions that GEAC kept taking, in an approval capacity. Given that it is only an Appraisal Committee, it could not have approved GM mustard," Kavitha Kuruganti from Alliance for Sustainable and Holistic Agriculture(ASHA) said. 

She said the GEAC itself in 2017, after giving its first green signal to GM mustard noted in its meeting minutes that they are recommending further 'approval to be given by competent authority, which means that they at least know that they are not an approving body.

Genome Editing

A few months back, the Central government in a major decision exempted SDN1 and SDN2 genome-edited plants from Rules 7-11 of the Environment Protect Act (EPA) for the manufacture, use or import or export and storage of hazardous microorganisms or genetically engineered organisms or cells rules-1989.

SDN 1, SDN 2 and SDN 3 are three methods of genome editing in crops.

In the first two (SDN 1 and SDN 2), an underlying gene can be suppressed or overexpressed, while in the third (SDN3), a foreign gene can be used in a targeted manner which is akin to genetic modification in some respects as both use foreign material.
 

The Centre in its order has eased the regulatory process for the first two, while keeping it intact for the third.

With the order, it has also tried to differentiate between genetically edited crops and genetically modified ones.

A basic and fundamental difference between Genetically Modified Crops and Gene-edited ones is that in the former the final product (which is a crop variety like BT cotton) has foreign genes, while in gene-edited plants, there is no additional foreign gene.

The order will promote and foster higher levels of research and development and ultimately lead to the commercial cultivation of crops resistant to biotic and abiotic stresses and with nutritional superiority.

Recently, China too approved guidelines for genome editing that will spur research into crops that have high yields and are resistant to pests and climate change.

GM Mustard & Htbt Cotton

A few weeks back, the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) under the ministry of environment approved the environmental release of Genetically Modified mustard (Brassica Juncea) hybrid DMH-11.

This according to some scientists is the first crop that has been approved for release since Bt cotton back in 2002.

“To generate scientific evidence in Indian agro-climatic situation and also as a precautionary mechanism, the field demonstration studies with respect to the effect of GE (genetically engineered) mustard on honey bees and other pollinators, as recommended in the GEAC meeting, shall also be conducted post environmental release, simultaneously by the applicant, within two years under the supervision of ICAR, as per ICAR guidelines and a report be submitted to the GEAC,” the committee said in the minutes of its meeting held on October 18 uploaded on its website a few hours back.

Patents on modified barnase-bartsar GM mustard are jointly owned by India’s National Dairy Development Board and University of Delhi under Prof Deepak Pental.

In between 2002 and now, the GEAC, which was then known as Genetic Engineering Approval Committee had approved BT Brinjal but the commercial release of the same was stayed by the then forests and environment minister on the grounds of insufficient scientific evidence on safety.

Meanwhile, the GEAC in its order said that approval for GM mustard is for a limited period of four years from the date of issue of the approval letter.
 

The development of the hybrid and its post-release monitoring will be done by a team of senior subject matter and external experts as per the GEAC order.

“Commercial use of DMH-11 hybrid shall be subject to Seed Act 1966 and related rules and regulations, its amendments and Gazette notifications from time to time as applicable,” GEAC said in its minutes of the meeting held on October 18. The minutes were uploaded a few hours back on the website.

Mustard is cultivated in the country on around 6.5-7.0 million hectares of land by around 6 million farmers in Rajasthan, Haryana, Punjab and Madhya Pradesh.

However, the per hectare yield of Indian mustard is very low at less than 1000 kgs while the global average is more than a third of the same.

Close on the heels of mustard, there are also talks that the GEAC might grant a similar nod for the long-pending Htbt Cotton also called Bollgard Two RoundUp Ready Flex (BG-2 RRF).

The GEAC in one of its meetings is believed to have approved the recommendations of a panel which has recommended a release similar to that of GM mustard for htbt cotton as well.

The BG-2 RRF had already undergone all biosafety trials in 2012-13 as per the application submitted by its original developer Monsanto.

Later, the application was withdrawn and resubmitted by Monsanto’s new owner Bayer sometime back.

The approval of Htbt Cotton will bring in long pending demand in the sector which has been reeling under repeated pest attacks due to the absence of newer varieties of Bt cotton after the first one was cleared back in 2002.

Clearly, if these decisions are allowed to reach their final stage, then they can fundamentally alter the trajectory of Indian agriculture for generations to come.