A push for GM mustard disregarding science, the law Premium

The long-term ecological and health risks of HT crops need to be considered and any change will imperil the future of farming and India’s food culture and heritage

A determined battle by environmentalists in the Supreme Court of India against Delhi University’s genetically modified (GM) herbicide-tolerant (HT) mustard is all that stands between GM food and Indian farmers and consumers. GM crops are quite different from conventional varieties and hybrids, such as those developed by farmers, agricultural research institutions and companies. Biotechnologists insert select genes at a random location in the DNA of a plant to develop a GM crop. The insertion makes a GM crop express traits that it ordinarily would not. For instance, GM mustard has been altered to withstand the broad-spectrum plant-killer or herbicide glufosinate. This makes it easier to develop hybrid mustard seeds for higher yields. And farmers growing GM mustard can spray the herbicide to kill all plants except the mustard.

India has seen a robust debate on GM crops in the last two decades. Environmentalists, scientists, politicians, farmers, consumers and the higher judiciary have asked probing questions about the safety, efficacy and even the very necessity of GM food.

Many have been alarmed by the experience with Bt cotton, the first and only GM crop approved in the country. Long-term research suggests that Bt cotton has provided only fleeting benefits to farmers, while enormously increasing their costs of cultivation and risk. On the other hand, some seed companies have profited handsomely from the expensive GM seeds.

In the wake of the fierce debate, two Standing Committees of the Parliament independently and comprehensively examined GM crops and food. The Supreme Court also appointed a Technical Expert Committee (TEC) in the public interest litigations filed separately by the non-government organisation Gene Campaign and the environmentalist, Aruna Rodrigues.

Thus there are two reports concerning GM food from the highest legislative body in the country — one by the Standing Committee on Agriculture in 2012 during Manmohan Singh’s government, and another by the Standing Committee on Science and Technology, Environment and Forests in 2017 during Narendra Modi’s government. Both committees included Members of Parliament from the ruling and Opposition parties.

Working across an interval of five years, the two committees unanimously highlighted major weaknesses in the regulatory system, and called for utmost caution before releasing GM food. The Committee on Science and Technology, Environment and Forests made a specific reference to GM mustard, and asked the government to conduct a thorough, independent, and transparent assessment of long-term biosafety, environmental risk and socio-economic impacts. Five of the six TEC members also pointed to grave deficiencies in the safety assessment of GM crops in their report that was released in 2013. They found HT crops “completely unsuitable in the Indian context” and warned of serious harm to the environment, rural livelihoods and sustainable agriculture if they were released.

This is a case of decisive convergence among noted scientists and the people’s elected representatives. This is as compelling a case as can be against releasing any HT crop, and for comprehensively strengthening regulation before allowing GM food. Such convergence refutes the prejudice that critics of GM crops are against development.