GM crops hit new roadblock: SC panel recommends 10-year moratorium on open field trials

NEW DELHI: India's next Green Revolution has just hit another roadblock in its almost snail-like journey towards a hopefully fruitful harvest, with a committee appointed by the Supreme Court recommending a halt to open field trials on all genetically modified crops for 10 years until a new set of conditions is enforced.

The committee's recommendations are similar to those made by former environment minister Jairam Ramesh, who had proposed a moratorium on the commercial release of BT Brinjal.

These fresh recommendations, however, are more significant as they constitute a key input to the Supreme Court, which has been hearing a public interest litigation filed by a clutch of independent scientists as well as activist organisations.

The case is expected to come up next for hearing on October 29.

So is India succumbing to the fear of Frankenfood? India's GM dreams received their first rude jolt in February 2010, when the ministry of environment and forests halted the commercial release of BT Brinjal, a new seed that used transgenic technology to make the vegetable impervious to insects and save farmers from spraying it almost 80 times with pesticides.

Ramesh had promised that BT Brinjal would be released once a better regulatory system was installed to ensure food and environmental safety.

More than two years later, neither the new rules nor approval for BT Brinjal are in sight. India's first GM food crop with enormous potential to raise farmer income was given a quiet burial.

GM Crops Brought Higher profits

It didn't end there. On July 6, 2011, the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC), India's apex biotech regulatory body, decided that scientists will be allowed to conduct field trials only after receiving a "no-objection certificate" from state governments.

As only four states - Punjab, Haryana, Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh - said yes, new seed can't be test-grown in the rest of the country to study agronomic and environmental efficacy.

Bihar and Rajasthan have uprooted ongoing trials, including those by government scientists.

At stake were GM chickpeas and pigeon pea, which can easily double the production of pulses, India's most important dietary protein. GM mustard can allow us to become less dependent on foreign markets for cooking oil.

Biotechnology can bring expensive vegetables and fruit within the reach of India's poorest families. GM corn can reduce feed costs for poultry and dairy. All these automatically got pushed into cold storage.

GM crops promised other benefits. Products close to field testing include tomato and banana with greater nutritive value and shelf-life; corn with low aflatoxin risk; easier to digest grains, healthy oils without harmful fatty acids, fortified grains and neutraceuticals such as golden rice with high amounts of vitamin A to prevent blindness.

Despite spending half their income on food, almost 30% of the world's undernourished people live in India because food is expensive. Matters will worsen in the coming decades.

A new law - the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India Bill 2012 - is awaiting Parliament's approval. Meanwhile, the sector continues to be governed by rules written in 1989. And the Lok Sabha committee on agriculture concluded in an August report that India doesn't need biotechnology.

To further queer the pitch, the CEO of a company can be jailed without bail if it does not take prior approval from the National Biodiversity Authority for collecting germplasm, the basic building blocks for plant research. The final verdict on India's tryst with GM foods will be delivered by the Supreme Court soon. If it puts an end to field trials, India's GM story would effectively be over.

Activists say the nation is rightly debating the risks of transgenic technology at several different levels - in Parliament, in state assembles, in courts, among scientists, farmers, and in government and regulatory circles.

"This debate is healthy and should be allowed without trying to hasten a conclusion," says Kavita Kuruganti, national convenor, Alliance for Sustainable & Holistic Agriculture, with 400 civil society members.

For the 64 private companies engaged in Indian farm biotech research, it has reduced life to the pincer of policy inaction and civil society activism.

"There is complete paralysis of policy and considerable political vacillation. There needs to be alignment between political parties, Central and state governments on this matter of grave national importance. The ministries of agriculture, environment and forests, and science and technology, need to sit together and consult states to hammer out a working model," says V Ram Kaundinya, chairman, agriculture focus group at Association of Biotechnology-led Enterprises, an industry body.

Large seed companies say such delays are forcing them to re-evaluate India on their priority list. "If the status quo continues, we will have to think twice as each company is answerable to its shareholders," says Gyanendra Shukla, director, Monsanto India Ltd.

In the last five years, agricultural biotechnology has grown from less than 5% to 15% revenue share of the $545-million Indian biotech sector. It was mainly achieved on the back of BT cotton. But now that 90% of cotton farmers have already adopted BT cotton, there is limited scope for growth in coming years.

Companies need new crops to sustain their high-growth trajectory. BT cotton had raised net profit by 6,000 to 10,000 per hectare in Maharashtra and to 12,000-14,000 in Punjab, Gujarat and Haryana, according to government data. Introduction of more GM crops would have further boosted productivity and profits.

Yet, there are those who are hopeful. GM technology is neither comatose nor dead, says Professor Akhilesh Kumar Tyagi, director, National Institute of Plant Genome Research.