Bt cotton approval delayed as regulator seeks fresh inputs from developer

Civil society alleges GEAC coercing states to give field trial nod

Farmers’ wait for the next generation of Bt cotton might have got a bit longer because the regulator, Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC), in its latest decision has asked its developer, Mahyco, to present a fresh dossier about the hybrid’s claims of efficacy against certain targeted pests and also a new socio-economic analysis of them.

This, industry players said, could further delay the commercialisation of the updated variant of Bt cotton (BG-2 Round Up Ready, or BG-2 RRF), and that too at a time when illegally grown Bt has been flooding the market. 

Cotton sowing is expected to start in the country with the onset of the monsoon, largely in Maharashtra, Gujarat, Punjab, etc. The GEAC held a meeting last month, and its minutes were made public a few days ago.

The regulator, though, has approved field trials of another event of a genetically engineered cotton hybrid having the cry2Ai gene for resistance against pink bollworm, but here too progress has been limited because states where such trials are to be conducted are reluctant to give the mandatory no-objection certificate (NoC). Field trials are to be conducted in Telangana, Maharashtra, Gujarat, and Haryana. And, according to the minutes of the meeting of the GEAC, none of the states was very forthcoming in allowing field trials of this new event of Bt cotton.

“The Department of Biotechnology (DBT), Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), and Ministry of Agriculture may jointly organise capacity building activities with regard to GM crops for (apprising) states and Union Terr­itories about the technology invo­lved and regulatory framework in place for evaluating these GM crops, thereby enabling informed decision making by the states and UTs,” the GEAC said in response to the apprehension expressed by states to the field trials.

The NoC from states was made mandatory for field trials as early as 2010, when the Central government did so while renaming the GEAC from “Genetic Engineering Approval Committee” to “Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee”.

Civil society activists, meanwhile, under the banner of the Coalition of GM-Free India, in a letter to Envir­onment Minister Bhupendra Yadav said when state governments such as Telangana and Gujarat had declined to provide the NoC, the GEAC was forcing them to provide reasons for it.

“Why should a statutory regulator be (pressuring) state governments in this manner? It has also been recorded that some activities will be taken up with state governments to enable informed decision-making by state governments,” the coalition said.

It has said in its various meetings the GEAC HAS recorded agriculture Is a “state subject”, and state governments’ involvement Is essential for compliance monitoring and therefore, the NoC system must be followed.

Bhagirath Choudhary, founder and director of the South Asia Biotechnology Centre, Jodhpur, said: “Revisiting the biosafety dossier of BG-2 RRF cotton at this stage is a regressive step ... It will delay the approval process of next-generation stacked trait Bt/HT cotton in India at least by two years. The additional requirements for changing pest dynamics and socio-economic consideration are evolving in nature and would continue to change with time and space and hence they should have been made part of conditional approval for BG-2 RRF. Moreover, opposition by NGOs will fuel the sale of illegal BG-2 RRF cotton.”