Subscribe
On July 23, the Supreme Court of India directed the Union government to develop a national policy on genetically modified (GM) crops for research, cultivation, trade and commerce through public consultation. This came as the Bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Sanjay Karol delivered a split verdict on the Centre’s 2022 decision to conditionally approve the environmental release of GM mustard (Dhara Mustard Hybrid—DMH-11).
The approval reignited the long-standing debate over GM crops. Proponents argue they are essential for India’s food security, while critics highlight concerns over agricultural distress, environmental and biodiversity risks and potential threats to human and animal health.
With the Union government now formulating a policy, Down To Earth speaks to experts on what it should entail. The experts emphasise on the need for a democratic, consultative process.
SOMA MARLA FORMER PRINCIPAL SCIENTIST, NATIONAL BUREAU OF PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES
Unlike other modern biotechnology products like vaccines and DNA- or protein-based drugs, GM crops in Indian agriculture have been mired in controversy since their introduction. GM cotton and the proposed herbicide-resistant mustard and maize are engineered by introducing foreign genes that enable plants to produce pesticides and herbicides. Unfortunately, these synthesised plant toxins do not discriminate between harmful pests and beneficial organisms like bees, killing both.
Despite extensive scientific evidence showing that GM plants harm soil, water, the environment and human health, policymakers and the government continue to push the technology.
The GM technology in use today was developed in the West nearly four decades ago, with no significant updates to biosafety measures since. The core of this technology involves “gene cassettes” containing genes (designed to produce pesticides or herbicides) flanked by viral promoters, bacterial vectors, antibiotic markers and other genetic elements. Typically, these genes are cloned from bacteria or viruses and then aligned with plant genomes. The widely used CaMV 35S promoter, of viral origin, has been found to cause adverse environmental effects and allergies. Similarly, the antibiotic resistance markers and herbicides like BASTA (a cousin of glyphosate, used in the development of Delhi University’s herbicidal mustard hybrid) are linked to microbial resistance and cancer.
Although plant-based alternatives exist, Western research has shown reluctance to adopt them. This is largely because GM technology is patented and owned by major multinationals. By promoting GM seeds, they market their pesticides, herbicides and even cancer treatment drugs.
A common myth perpetuated by the GM lobby is that they are the only solution to eradicating hunger. However, high yields cannot be achieved by introducing a single engineered dominant gene. Traits like drought resistance or high yields in crops like wheat or rice are controlled by dozens of interacting genes across various chromosomes. This explains why much-hyped transgenic hybrids like Bayer’s DroughtGard corn have failed in farmers’ fields.
A more sensible approach is the use of modern molecular and genomic tools combined with conventional breeding techniques to develop high-yielding crops. Public sector research has long been successful in developing crop varieties and agronomic practices that reduce the need for costly chemical inputs while promoting sustainability. Techniques such as quantitative trait loci mapping and marker-assisted breeding have enabled the development of superior crop varieties in public sector research institutions. Oddly still, these public institutions have recently entered into collaborations with global chemical giants like Bayer to develop GM crops and extend their reach into villages. This contradicts the public sector’s mandate to develop low-input, high-yielding and sustainable technologies. Today, proven technologies exist that can promote sustainable crop cultivation by harnessing the rich genetic diversity from indigenous, locally adapted germplasm.
KAVITHA KURUGANTI ALLIANCE FOR SUSTAINABLE & HOLISTIC AGRICULTURE
After nearly two decades of hearing public interest petitions (PILs) on the issue, the Supreme Court on July 23 ordered the Union government to develop a national policy on GM crops. The bench emphasised the need for a national policy on GM technology, instructing that it be developed through consultations with key stakeholders.
Farmers’ organisations have written to the Union government, demanding a consultative process similar to the one undertaken by the UPA government in 2010 regarding the commercialisation of Bt brinjal. They are also calling for a biosafety policy, rather than a promotional policy for GM crops, insisting that socio-economic considerations must also be included. Meanwhile, reports suggest that the Union Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare has constituted a panel of scientific experts to study the global scenario and draft a policy. However, no details have been reported in the media, raising concerns that the apex court’s orders may already be getting violated.
The issue of GM in India’s food systems has been examined by high-level committees in the past, all of which adopted consultative processes. In May 2004, the Task Force on the Application of Agricultural Biotechnology recommended that “the bottom line of our national agricultural biotechnology policy should be the economic well being of farm families, food security of the nation, health security of the consumer, protection of the environment, and the security of our national and international trade in farm commodities”.
In August 2012, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Agriculture concluded, among other things, that there was a need for an overarching legislation on biosafety. Currently, India lacks a statute on biosafety, with the regulatory framework governed by subordinate legislation in the form of rules. The committee recommended an encompassing umbrella legislation on biosafety, which is focused on ensuring the biosafety, biodiversity, human and livestock health, environmental protection and which specifically describes the extent to which biotechnology fits in the scheme of things without compromising the safety of any of the elements above.
Another Standing Committee on Science and Technology, Environment, and Forests, in its August 2017 report, recommended that no GM crop should be introduced unless its impact on the environment and human health is scientifically assessed. This should be done with consideration of long-term effects. The report also recommended restructuring (the current) regulatory framework for an unbiased assessment.
It is important to note that, over the past 20 years, many states have taken scientific stances on GM crops, often in consultation with their state agricultural universities, agriculture commissions or state biodiversity boards. Some states have opposed GM crops on a case-by-case basis, while others have adopted blanket policies against their environmental release, including field trials. Opposition to GM food crops remains strong in most states, as both agriculture and health fall under state jurisdiction according to India’s Constitution.
Given this context, the only prudent course of action for the Union government is to follow the Supreme Court’s orders and conduct widespread democratic consultations.
IMRAN SIDDIQI EMERITUS SCIENTIST, CENTRE FOR CELLULAR AND MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
In 2012, the Supreme Court established a Technical Expert Committee to review the biosafety of GM crops. The committee, which I was a part of, identified gaps in the regulatory system and made several recommendations, the most important being the need to evaluate GM products for suitability across India’s diverse agro-economic conditions.
As the Union government considers a GM policy, it must address the recommendations. A key suggestion is factoring socioeconomic considerations into regulatory decision-making, aligning with international treaties India is party to, such as the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. However, India has been reluctant to implement this aspect. The focus should not only be on introducing new technology but also on evaluating its relevance for India’s varied agricultural scenarios.
We found that the current regulatory process focuses narrowly on technical comparisons between transgenic and non-transgenic crops, without considering how the GM crop will perform in diverse conditions. This is primarily the responsibility of the Union agriculture ministry and the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, but they have neglected these issues, harming farmers. BT cotton is a clear example of this. Its introduction had unintended consequences, as the model was commercially driven and favoured companies over farmers.
India opted for hybrid seeds for BT cotton even though it is suboptimal for farmers, as its cultivation requires more fertilisers, water and investment. The model works for resource-rich farmers but puts poor, rain-fed cotton farmers, who make up 65 per cent of India’s cotton growers, at risk. Studies have linked BT cotton to increased farmer suicides.
Before BT cotton, state seed corporations produced a variety of cotton seeds, but the arrival of BT cotton, licensed only to commercial seed companies, eliminated public sector involvement. As a result, BT cotton now dominates the market. This flawed model continues today and both the agriculture department and regulatory bodies should be held accountable. The new policy must assess whether GM crops truly benefit all farmers or only those with resources.
This was first published in the 1-15 November, 2024 print edition of Down To Earth