Half-baked policy

The biotechnology regulator must work in the public interest

Protest comes in entertaining forms these days. In cooking the biggest-ever baigan ka bharta with only organically-grown baigan (brinjal or egg plant), a group of environmental activists scored two points. First, they qualified for entry into the Limca Book of Records. Second, they registered their protest against the proposed Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) Bill, 2011, fearing it would ease the commercial production of genetically modified (GM) Bt brinjal. Indeed, the significance of the proposed statute goes far beyond crop biotechnology, the prime focus of the debate on genetically engineered products. The science of biotechnology is being gainfully utilised in fields as diverse as agriculture, fisheries, environment and forests, human and animal health, pharmaceuticals, industries and so on. Though India has been a late entrant in the field, its biotechnology industry has made rapid strides, growing annually at 20 to 30 per cent in the past five years and touching a turnover of over Rs 14,200 crore in 2009-10 (official estimates). However, growth has been accompanied by concerns over the risk that genetically altered organisms pose to environment and health.

It is, therefore, imperative that an effective regulatory mechanism be established to ensure hazard-free development to the satisfaction of both developers of biotech products and their users, notably the public. The present arrangement, comprising the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) and the rules concerning GM products under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, has failed to meet the expectations of both these stakeholders. The regulatory authority, envisaged in the BRAI Bill, drafted after protracted confabulations with various stakeholders since 2008, seems better than the present bureaucrat-headed GEAC, but there’s scope for improvement.

Environmental activists are, however, almost dismissive of the BRAI Bill, maintaining that it does not provide for public consultations, an adequate voice for state governments, bio-safety guarantees, impact assessment, liability and redressal mechanisms, and transparency in terms of disclosure of information concerning biotech products. While some of these objections may be justified, others seem debatable, especially considering the various checks and balances stipulated in the Bill. The planned authority is required to be assisted by three regulatory divisions with specific expertise in agriculture, human and animal health, and industrial and environment aspects. Besides, it will have an inter-ministerial governing board to oversee its performance, a biotechnology advisory council to give it strategic advice, and an appellate tribunal headed by a former Supreme Court judge to hear objections against its decisions. This apart, the Bill provides for setting up a state biotechnology regulatory advisory committee to act as an intermediary between state governments and the authority. In terms of transparency, the Bill does seek to guard the developers of GM products, by protecting their commercial secrets, which can infringe the citizens’ right to information. The controversy caused by some civil society groups over which ministry should have administrative control of the proposed authority is trivial. Finally, the government must ensure transparency and professionalism at all levels so that it does not really matter who is the political boss implementing the policy.