With the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) green-lighting approval of the genetically modified (GM) mustard, DMH-11, for commercial cultivation, India seems to have moved closer to joining the club of over 25 nations which grow gene-altered food crops. Yet, more hurdles need to be overcome before the GM mustard, developed by the Delhi University’s Centre for Genetic Manipulation of Crop Plants, could reach the farmers. A formidable one among them is the stiff resistance from the detractors of the GM crops, including the Swadeshi Jagran Manch, an affiliate of the saffron conglomerate of which the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party is a part. Remember, it was the anti-GM lobby that had forced the then environment minister Jairam Ramesh to block the release of the transgenic Bt-brinjal in 2010 despite its clearance by the GEAC. Besides, the government also has to get the Supreme Court to vacate its stay on the cultivation of gene-tweaked food crops. Moreover, some states, which are averse even to holding field trials of GM crops in their territories, will need to be coaxed to shed their reservations about these crops.
Given the Narendra Modi government’s avowed inclination towards science-backed development of agriculture to boost farmers’ income, it is hoped that Environment Minister Anil Madhav Dave would show adequate alacrity to ensure that the gene-changed mustard hits the fields in the next rabi season. At stake is also the future of over 100 GM products of various crops, including cereals, fruits, vegetables and commercial crops, which are in different stages of evolution. The developers of some of these GM crops, mostly in the public sector, are watching the fate of the DMH-11 before putting up their products before the GEAC. A noteworthy point here is that many of these are non-hybrid GM crop varieties whose seeds can be retained by farmers for reuse, unlike those of hybrids which have to be sourced afresh every season. These also include three locally made Bt-cotton varieties recommended for commercial release by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR). The clearance of such varieties will end the monopoly of the multinational company Monsanto in the GM seeds market as almost all Bt-cotton seed producers are using the patent-protected genetic traits of this company.
It must be appreciated that both the environment ministry and the GEAC have treaded cautiously in the case of GM mustard to avoid the charge of non-transparency. The ministry had put most of the data generated through the protracted process of tests and trials, including the Assessment of Food and Environmental Safety report, on its website. The GEAC is said to have weighed comments received from over 700 respondents, apart from hearing the views of the anti-GM organisations, before giving its consent for the release of GM mustard. If the opponents of the GM crops still choose to protest against this decision, they would be doing a disservice to farmers.
Nevertheless, the truth remains that the present biotechnology regulatory framework, with the final say being with a politician (read environment minister), leaves much to be desired. It should be replaced with a strong, scientifically competent and adequately empowered biotechnology regulator, which can keep a distance from non-science based influences. Until such a statutory system is put in place, it would be hard to convince the public and, more importantly, antagonists of the GM products to give up their hostility towards these crops.
