GM crops need robust regulatory framework

India missed an opportunity to take early advantage of GM technology, particularly for edible crops, which many other countries have grabbed. We have been rather slow in making breakthrough discoveries as well as in developing GM regulatory approaches to enhance farm production. Government support in the form of resources, policies and processes needs to be made more efficient so that agricultural research and farm productivity in India are looked up to globally.

SS Chahal and Rakesh Tuli

THE debate over the promotion of Indian agriculture through the cultivation of GM crops has been revived by the recent approval granted by the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) for the environmental release of Genetically Modified (GM) mustard for hybrid seed production. The Supreme Court, which is hearing petitions against GM crops, has ordered status quo on the matter. The introduction of Bt cotton, the first and the only GM crop grown in India since 2002, rejuvenated cotton cultivation. It has made the country a world leader in cotton production and export. Scientists were motivated to employ Bt technology for improving other crops damaged by field pests, especially fruit borers and leaf eaters.

Bt brinjal was, understandably the next GM crop, resistant to fruit and shoot borer. It was developed through public-private partnership using the same gene (from a soil bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis). It received the nod of the GEAC but met with forceful resistance from environmentalists, triggering a countrywide debate on the introduction of edible GM crops in the country. Bt brinjal ultimately met with a moratorium in 2010 on the recommendation of the Ministry of Environment despite immense scientific support. The moratorium is being continued. Meanwhile, another edible GM crop, hybrid mustard DMH-11, has reached an advanced stage of approval for commercial cultivation. Will it face a Bt brinjal-like fate?

Unlike Bt cotton and Bt brinjal, DMH-11 has been developed by a team of scientists at Delhi University, which is a public sector organisation. This hybrid contains two genes transferred from a soil bacterium, Bacillus amyloliquefaciens, under the Barnase-Barstar system and a third gene (bar) from Streptomyces hygroscopicus that gives tolerance to a herbicide (glufosinate ammonium). The GEAC has recommended its environmental release for seed production initially for four years, extendable by two years, depending upon the safety data on its effect on honeybees and other pollinator insects. It is stated that with more than 20 per cent higher yield than the conventional varieties, DMH-11 can help reduce the import of edible oil; this contention has been contested by some scientists and agricultural experts.

The Supreme Court order on GM mustard has its roots in the report of the Parliament Standing Committee on Agriculture (2012), whose recommendations were against conducting field trials on edible GM crops till a multidisciplinary regulatory system was put in place. Afterwards, the Prime Minister’s Scientific Advisory Committee and Technical Expert Committee recommended in 2012 and 2013 to fix the gaps in the regulatory mechanism and develop deeper understanding of risk assessment for biosafety evaluation through consultation, collaboration, capacity building and suspension of the field trials till such conditions are met.

One major point raised by some experts was insufficient long-term (chronic) toxicity studies on Bt brinjal. Have such studies been carried out on GM mustard? The second argument against Bt brinjal was the fear of contamination of diverse brinjal varieties in India with the transgenes. Has this issue been examined for Indian mustard?

GM mustard has a herbicide-tolerant gene. It will produce herbicide glufosinate ammonium to kill weeds. There are warnings about the adverse medical impact of consumption of such GM mustard.

Pending rigorous data, several states recommended a ban on Bt brinjal. GM mustard should not face a similar public opinion-driven campaign and ministerial intervention, in contravention of the current (limited purpose/supervised) approval by the GEAC.

Worldwide, around 30 countries grow GM crops on about 185 million hectares. Though there is general scientific consensus that there is no greater risk to human health from the food obtained from GM crops than conventional food, it is mandatory to rigorously test GM crops for safety on a case-to-case basis before they are released for general cultivation. Similarly, it is mandatory to address the environmental impact of cultivation of a GM crops. In October 2013 four Bt brinjal varieties were approved for commercial cultivation in Bangladesh, which has a porous border with India. Taking a clear stand on Bt brinjal can pave the way for the release of GM mustard.

India missed an opportunity to take early advantage of GM technology, particularly for edible crops, which many other countries have grabbed. We have been rather slow in making breakthrough discoveries as well as in developing GM regulatory approaches to enhance farm production. Government support in the form of resources, policies and processes needs to be made more efficient so that agricultural research and farm productivity in India are looked up to globally.

Chahal is former VC, Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur; Tuli is ex-Director, National Agri-Food Biotechnology Institute, Mohali