Editorial: Dealing with GM foods

Some have been highlighted by the scientist, Pushpa Mitter Bhargava, who the Supreme Court said should attend GEAC meetings. Dr Bhargava has argued, for instance, that there are no independent tests of the toxicity and allergenic reports that are submitted to the GEAC by the companies whose products are being tested. He also questions GEAC data and cites the example of the GEAC website, which finds the same results on the presence of Bt protein in uncooked brinjal for both GM and non-GM varieties. The dissent is not limited toDr Bhargava. A recent UN report is categorical that the inability to "properly test for contamination is troubling and threatens the viability of the international bio-safety mechanism. The rapid expansion of GM crops in the developing world means that such contamination may render the whole system irrelevant". Sadly, no other members of the GEAC have sought to challenge the points that Dr Bhargava and others are making.

 

These are serious issues that need to be addressed squarely, and not buried through silence. While the pro-GM lobby pooh poohs the talk of genetic mutation, as also the view that GM should not be allowed in food crops (especially those in which there is a lot of genetic diversity), it is clear that even basic precautions are not being taken up today. For instance, GM seed suppliers talk of the need to keep a distance of 200 metres between GM and non-GM fields to ensure that there is no gene migration, but no one actually monitors this at the farm level. It is to be hoped that such concerns will be addressed once a national biotech board is put in place, under the country's biotech policy, but what level of confidence can one have that this will in fact happen? It would also make sense to shift clearance process from the environment ministry to either the agriculture or science and technology ministries, which are better equipped.