Hill Task of Policy Making on GM

It is a matter of great regret that the fact that GM mustard is herbicide tolerant was concealed initially. It is worth noting that while testing the DMH-11, no test was conducted about its herbicide tolerance. — Dr. Ashwani Mahajan

Recently, Honorable Supreme Court of India delivered a split verdict regarding commercial cultivation of genetically modified (GM) mustard in India. Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Sanjay Karol presented differing opinions. Justice Nagarathna ruled against the commercial sale and environmental release of GM Mustard, citing flaws in the approval process and inadequate consideration of environmental and health impacts; Justice Karol found no manifest arbitrariness in the GEAC’s decisions. He supported the continuation of field trials but stressed that they should proceed with strict safeguards.

The case (Suman Sahai and others versus Union of India) regarding commercial release of GM crops has been long pending in the Honorable Supreme Court of India, since the year 2004, but the government and others supporting GM crops have not been able to convince the court for commercial release of GMO. Not one, but there are numerous contentious issues in this case, that the court has not been able to resolve for so long. The split decision of the Supreme Court delivered on 23 July 2024, regarding commercial release of GM Mustard, once again shows the complexities in this case.

The very fact that this case is being heard by the courts, is due to the reason that governments in various regimes have been pushing the use of GM crops, by way of granting regulatory approvals. Interestingly the issue of release of GM crops is not with the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers' Welfare, but with Ministry of Environment and Forests. The reason behind this is that the release of GM crops are confronted with the risk of adversely impacting the environment.

Though, delivering a split judgement on the issue of commercial release of GM Mustard, both judges agreed on the need for a national policy on Genetically Modified (GM) crops. And they directed the central government, to consult all stakeholders and experts within 4 months to formulate this policy. At the same time the bench referred the matter to Chief Justice of India for further adjudication by the appropriate bench.

Therefore, the matter, although, has gone to yet another appropriate bench to be constituted by the Chief Justice of India, the most important part of this judgement is that the government has been directed by the court, to formulate a policy on GM, after consultation with various stake holders and experts. By any stretch of imagination, an issue which has created immense debate and heat in the country and the world, in the last more than quarter of a century, where experts are divided, people not just worried, but are frightened, where there is a total lack of a formidable regulatory mechanism, where Supreme Court has itself held back its decision, for decades, on the matter due to lack of regulatory mechanism, insufficient proofs of the GMOs being safe for human health and environment, where many countries have already banned GM crops on concerns of human health and environment, it is very unlikely that the government will be able to accomplish this task of preparing a national policy on GM after consultation with stakeholders and experts, in just 4 months.

This is not the first time that the consultative mechanism will be adopted for GM crops. At an earlier occasion, we have had public hearings with regard to commercial release of BT Brinjal, under UPA government, with the then Minister of Environment and Forests, Jairam Ramesh. The Minister asked the science academies to provide further data on Bt brinjal that could aid in the decision making. After the academies failed to do this, the moratorium was issued Minister Jairam Ramesh on the commercial release of Bt brinjal, citing safety concerns.

Plausible Structure of Consultations

While, Supreme Court has directed the government to hold stakeholders and experts’ consultations, an important question is that what could be the structure of these consultations. There is a whole set of issues on which these consultations can happen. Many of the contentious issues have long been listed by the Technical Expert Committee of Supreme Court, which can form the basis of consultative process, and help reach at conclusions.

Let us try to have a look at the contentious issues revolving around GMO in the country:

Very first Issue, on which there is a lack of consensus among the experts, is the claim of higher productivity of GM crops. Interestingly, the official version is that the country has been importing a large amount of edible oils, most of which are GM oils. Government’s claim that adoption of DMH 11 can help solve the deficiency in mustard production in the country, and can help reducing the dependence on imports and increase the income of the farmers, due to higher productivity of DMH 11, is countered by the experts, who say that productivity of DMH11 is no more than 2200 kg per hectare, while the yield of many other hybrids of mustard in the country ranges from 2500 kg to 4000 kg per hectare. Significantly, the recorded productivity of mustard is already more than DMH 11 in many parts of the country. According to a research paper by Dr. Dheeraj Singh, former Director of the Indian Institute of Mustard and Rapeseed, the productivity of varieties RS 1706, RH 1424 and RH 725 grown by farmers in Rajasthan (as announced by the government itself) is 2613 kg, 2604 kg, 2642 kg. respectively.

Second issue of contention is that of intellectual property rights. Farmers organisations are worried that once we adopt GMO, the monopoly of MNCs over seed will increase the burden on farmers in the form of royalty on seeds. Their apprehensions are not without a reason. We see that the farmers had to pay through their nose for BT cotton seeds (approximately Rs 8000 crore), as a major portion of the price of BT cotton seed was trait fee. Farmers had a sigh of relief when government of India removed the trait fee from the seed price as their seed had failed miserably in terms of their claims of resistance towards ‘pink ball worm’. The present DMH 11 seed, though, is being presented as swadeshi, actually have used some traits of technology of Bayer company.

Third important issue related to GMOs is their impact on international trade. Whereas, supporters of GM claim, without a valid argument that it will reduce our dependence on imported edible oils (in case DMH11 is allowed), fact of the matter is that we may lose our major advantage in international trade, once we adopt GM in food crops. Today, we are exporting nearly USD 54 billion worth of food products, riding on Non-GM tag. Once GM in food is permitted, we lose this important advantage, as importing countries, where GM is not permitted, may impose ban on Indian food imports.

Fourth contentious issue is about GM seeds on Indian food and ayurveda. GM alter the availability of food crops,which are traditionally a part of our food habits. Say for instance, ‘Sarson Ka Saag’. Similarly, Indian mustard has many medicinal uses in Ayurveda, which we may lose, if DMH11 is allowed.

Fifth issue in the debate over GMO is its herbicide tolerance. It’s notable that approximately 88 percent of GM crops are designed to be herbicide tolerant. This means, GM crops would generally enhance the use of herbicides, leading to increased toxicity. All major herbicides are proven carcinogenic.

It is a matter of great regret that the fact that GM mustard is herbicide tolerant was concealed initially. It is worth noting that while testing the DMH-11, no test was conducted about its herbicide tolerance. When alert citizens and experts exposed this misdeed of GEAC, the committee imposed a condition that under no situation, any herbicide will be used by the farmers.

The list of contentious issues includes, various other points; without deliberating on those, we may be failing in our duty to make an informed policy on the subject. These issues include, impact on seed sovereignty; impact on biodiversity; impact on consumers protection and choices; impact on food security, food sovereignty and nutrition security; issue of conflict of interest (if we see the people who are recommending adoption of GM, are actually linked with developers of GM); lack of independent testing; impact of GM Mustard on honeybees, which are important for productivity of mustard and other crops; and socio- economic considerations related to use of herbicide tolerant GMO.                                

Share This