Opinion - Editorials

Mustard matters

FACED WITH THE task of deciding whether to accord commercial approval for genetically modified (GM) mustard developed by the multinational Proagro Seeds, the Union Environment Ministry has responded in a familiar way: by deferring the decision. The Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), the highest regulatory body when it comes to matters relating to biotechnology, has declared it needs more time to analyse and interpret the data provided by the seed company before arriving at a final decision. Over a year ago, the GEAC held back approval for Mahyco-Monsanto's Bt cotton, only to grant it a whole eight months later. The similarities between the two cases, however, end here. While Mahyco was asked to repeat large-scale field trials for another year so that the Bt cotton crops could be assessed on certain parameters, Proagro has not been asked to furnish additional data. The GEAC's official statement following the deferral is delightfully vague. All it suggests is that the body wants a closer look at GM mustard, including its pollination impact on related and unrelated plant species.

The gap between deferral and approval in the case of Bt cotton was not merely a widespread but also an eventful eight months. It was a period during which illegal or unregulated Bt cotton seeds, manufactured by a relatively small Ahmedabad-based seed company, were identified as having been planted extensively in Gujarat and elsewhere — a situation which exposed the shortcomings of a regulatory system which takes possibly longer than necessary to approve legally introduced GM products but totally incapable of preventing the spread of illegal ones. With respect to deferring environmental clearance for GM mustard, it is important to note that there is a whale of a difference between asking for more time to study data and asking for more data to be provided. As a result, there is a widespread feeling that another GEAC meeting is likely to be convened shortly to reconsider the mustard decision; some news reports suggest that the decision has been deferred by only two or three weeks.

The regulatory apparatus for GM products must function in a manner that is thorough and rigorous. But it must also work in a style which is transparent and which infuses public confidence. Secrecy and infighting among Ministries attended the process for granting Bt cotton approval, the latter directly responsible for holding up approval for the pest-resistant variety that has proved extremely popular with cotton farmers. This time too, the vague and general statement explaining why the decision on GM mustard has been deferred leaves the room open for suspicion about both the aims and the efficiency of the regulatory system. In the long run, India will have to clarify its attitude towards transgenic crops, or even biotechnology as a whole. The official policy of promoting what is recognised as a sunrise industry is often at odds with a regulatory apparatus, which is unhelpful, and functions with neither the necessary speed nor transparency.

Proagro's mustard, which offers an estimated 25 per cent advantage over the so-called national `check' varieties, has undergone different stages of testing since the company acquired the seeds from Belgium and backcrossed them on an Indian variety about seven years ago. The so-called barnase-barstar genetic engineering technology is neither new nor untried; Proagro's parent company Aventis has deployed it successfully, particularly in Canada, for developing hybrids of canola (which is closely related to the mustard family.) GM mustard is India's first transgenic food crop to come up for approval and therefore any decision the GEAC takes will be a defining one for Indian agriculture. In a global environment where the spread of GM crops is increasing sharply and where countries such as China have made rapid strides in both the development and use of this technology, this country must adopt a clear and unambiguous attitude towards it. As even the UNDP has acknowledged, the potential of this technology to increase food security and alleviate hunger cannot be ignored any longer.

© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu