In a letter to Union Environment Minister Anil Madhav Dave, they said, "We write to you to communicate our rejection of transgenics in our food, farming and environment and to urge you to stop your regulators from providing any regulatory clearances to GMOs and their environmental release."
"This applies to the current case of GM mustard in particular (all the 3 GMOs) but also all GM foods," said the letter written by citizens, which also include former health and agriculture ministers, eminent academics cutting across different disciplines and senior retired bureaucrats.
After the sub-committee examined the data, the report was placed on the Environment Ministry's website inviting comments from stakeholders within a period of 30 days before the biotech regulator took a decision.
"We urge you to extend the public feedback time to 120 days," they said.
The report claimed that the hybrid variety did not pose any risk to biodiversity or agro-ecosystem.
"We are alarmed at the non-scientific, opaque and deceptive processes being adopted by the regulators in the name of collecting public feedback on GM mustard," they said.
"...And make sure that feedback is collected in all forms without any prescribed formats," the letter said.
Terming the GMOs as herbicide-tolerant, the letter said the adverse impacts of such crops including greater agri- chemical usage, more chemical residues in food and environment, entrapping of farmers in a seed-and-chemicals market trap and creation of super-weeds are well documented.
They said they have been urging the regulator that this
"There are several other issues including the fact that yield increase claims are unfounded and that there are various ways and means by which India's oilseeds production can be increased without resorting to transgenic technology.
"In fact, the release of (even non-transgenic) hybrids has not resulted in any yield or production increases of mustard as evidence shows," the letter said.
They said that after a special meeting convened by GEAC to listen to citizens' representatives, it had become clearer that the regulatory body is limiting itself to only "narrow biosafety assessment" that too in an "unscientific and incomplete manner".
"What about the rights of consumers who wish to know what is in their food, have a right to informed choices and have a right to safe food? Will a labelling regime ever work in a country where most consumption is not of packaged commodities, but open?" they added.
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
