The Parliamentary Committee on Agriculture, in its August 2012 report has recommended a total ban on the field trials of all GM crops. The report titled “Cultivation of genetically modified food crops – Prospects and effects” is based on views and suggestions on the subject from the various stakeholders. 467 memoranda and documents running into 14826 pages were examined by the Committee which also extensively interacted with various stakeholders including State Governments, farmers’ organizations, NGOs and farmers.
Releasing the report, Chairperson of the Committee, Basudeb Acharia said, “The Committee has come to the conclusion that since concerns on the potential and actual impacts of GM crops to our food, farming, health and environment are valid, GM crops are just not the right solution for our country."
Poison on the platter - A movie by Mahesh Bhatt and Ajay Kanchan that looks at issues related to GM crops; this movie was viewed by the Committee
Courtesy: Top Documentary Films
Oral evidences by witnesses to the Committee - Various stands
Shri S. Ramchandra Pillai, President of All India Kisan Sabha, one of the largest farmers’ organization in India during his oral evidence to the Committee in October 2010 said that “There are possibilities for increasing productivity and production in agriculture by making use of genetically modified crops. But there are many risks involved in the use of genetically modified crops. The risks are much more in the case of food grains or food crops rather than in the case of non-food crops. So, all appropriate measures should be taken to avoid all ill effects of the genetically modified crops.”
Strongly advocating public sector intervention he further stated that the “experience of the performance of the private sector in this area is totally disappointing. The multinational companies charge exorbitant rates for the genetically modified crops. This is the experience in the case of Bt. Cotton that because of the patent regime they hold their monopoly power over the genetic resources; because of the high rates for the genetically modified seeds, the common peasants do not get benefits from the use of genetically modified crops. Profit motive is the chief driving force of the activities of the private sector in this area. So, because of their drive for more profits, they may fail even to give appropriate importance to the safety measures. They may also not give adequate importance to harness the pro-poor features of the use of bio-technology to find solution to the problems of food security, malnutrition, poverty, unemployment and backwardness, etc.”
The Chairman of Monsanto India Ltd. during his oral evidence had a different story to tell. He was of the view that in India, “Bt cotton technology is the most competitive in the world… Around 80 Indian seed companies are marketing and selling Bollgard cotton to Indian farmers. The beauty of GM crops is such that even as a technology provider and the owner of the technology, Monsanto’s market share in Bt cotton is only six per cent”. On pricing of the seeds he said that "every company that introduces a technology is always very careful about pricing. It is because you cannot get the prices wrong as farmers have a choice. If you get the pricing wrong, people are not going to buy it. When we did the initial studies for Bt. cotton before 2006, we found that farmers used to spend Rs. 3,700 for seed and bollworm control which Bt. cotton does. We priced it at less than half for him as the cost, giving him more than sixty per cent.”
The report quotes Dr. P.M. Bhargava, founder Director of Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Hyderabad and currently the Supreme Court nominee on Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) who informed the Committee that “Actually in our country about half a dozen tests have so far been done on Bt. cotton, which is the only GM product released in the environment or others that are in the pipeline, like Bt. brinjal. Even these tests have been done either by the company itself or by an accredited laboratory, but on the samples given by the company. In India, we are dealing largely with Monsanto. Please allow me to say that if we were to make a list of unethical companies in all areas of industry around the world, the Monsanto will be the number one… It is known for bribing, for example, in Indonesia. It is known for hiding data, falsifying data or presenting wrong data and so on… I am not suggesting or asking that we put a permanent ban on release of all GM organisms. All that I am saying is that they must be adequately tested and we have defined very clearly what adequate testing is.”
Use of GM crops contentious
The report states that the application of modern biotechnology outside containment, such as the use of GM crops is controversial. “The controversy over modern biotechnology outside of containment includes technical, social, legal, cultural and economic arguments. The three most discussed issues on biotechnology in the International Assessment for Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) concerned: (a) Lingering doubts about the adequacy of efficacy and safety testing, or regulatory frameworks for testing Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs); (b) Suitability of GMOs for addressing the needs of most farmers while not harming others, at least within some existing Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and liability frameworks; and (c) Ability of modern biotechnology to make significant contributions to the resilience of small and subsistence agricultural systems.”
“For any GM crop that is being developed in any part of the word right now, there exist ecological alternatives which are economically and socially sustainable.” (Basudeb Acharya, Deccan Herald, 2011)
The Big Picture - Is GM technology harmful or helpful?
Courtesy: Rajya Sabha TV
Recommendations on GM crops
The report notes that Bt cotton did not improve the socio-economic condition of cotton farmers in the country at all. In fact it had furthered their distress, especially in the rain-fed areas and the largest number of suicides was reported from areas where Bt cotton was used. The panel recommended re-evaluation of all research findings in Bt cotton seeds in the light of studies that highlighted inexplicable changes in the organs and tissues of Bt-cotton seed-fed lambs.
The Committee has recommended a thorough probe by a team of eminent independent scientists and environmentalists into the Bt. Brinjal matter from its approval by GEAC till the imposition of a moratorium on its commercialization in 2010.
The report recommends that an important issue like antibiotic resistant markers, be not left in the hands of GEAC, but the Government should come up with a clear-cut policy in this regard without any further loss of time.
The Committee concluded that all is not well with the regulatory mechanism put in place by the Government for oversight of cutting edge technology as sensitive as GMOs and products thereof. GEAC as an entity had been created under rules (in 1989) rather than an Act of Parliament and this deprives it of the status, powers and more importantly autonomy and independence that a statutory regulator ought to have. The enforceability of Rules, made under EPA, 1986, does not have as much definitiveness and clarity as under an Act.
Furthermore, unlike an Act, there is a lot of scope for varied interpretation of Rules as also flexibility to implement them. The confusion about the recommendatory/approving authority of GEAC whether due to genuine confusion or deliberate go on to cement the view of the Committee that the regulatory mechanism definitely requires the protection and support of an Act of the Parliament which leaves no scope for ambiguity or complacency. An immediate review of the organizational set-up and infrastructure of GEAC and Review Committee on Genetic Manipulation (RCGM) by the Government and necessary augmentation, both in terms of men and material has been recommended by the Committee. It further states that this be done without linking it to the proposed omnibus regulatory authority that may still take years to come into existence.
On the issue of conflict of interest in regulatory bodies, the report was of the view that there should be a “delinking of interest groups/ individuals from the decision making tiers of the regulatory mechanism without the regulatory mechanism being deprived of the professional inputs of the groups/individuals in question.”
The Committee recommends that RCGM and GEAC furnish their considered views on Bt cotton feeding studies on Sheep and how it fared in their consideration while deciding the bio-safety and health safety aspects of the product in question.
The two major constituents of the present regulatory system viz. GEAC and RCGM are under the Ministry of Environment and Forests and the Department of Biotechnology respectively. The problem, however, is that the Government has inordinately dithered in bringing an appropriate bio-safety friendly legislation in the matter before the Parliament. Nonetheless, the Committee feels that the failure of the Government to bring legislation on the subject till now should not in any way prevent or pre-empt the monitoring, oversight and evaluation of the extant regulatory system by the Parliament and its entities.
The report recommends that the Government should duly consult the Norwegian Law which offers many learning’s on GM regulations.
The report notes that the Biological Diversity Authority and Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Authority (PPV and FRA) could have played a crucial role as an advisor and regulator in several matters pertaining to safety and sustainability of biodiversity but they are just a cosmetic presence. The Government had been for some years now toying with the idea of a Biotechnology Regulatory Authority. The Committee felt that regulating biotechnology is too small a focus in the vast canvas of biodiversity, environment, human and livestock health, etc., and a multitude of other such related issues. In view of this, the Committee recommended that the country requires an all encompassing Bio-safety Authority without any further loss of time.
On GM crops and food security, the report notes that primarily faulty procurement policy, mismanagement of stocks, lack of adequate and proper storage, hoarding and lopsided distribution, massive leakages in the public distribution delivery system, etc. are more responsible for the present worrisome situation. If these shortcomings and problems are attended to along with liberal financial assistance to agriculture and allied sectors, proactive measures are initiated to arrest the decreasing trend in cultivable area and farmer friendly and sustainable agricultural practices are put in use, there would not be any compelling need for adopting technologies which are yet to be proven totally safe for biodiversity, environment, human and livestock health and which will encourage monoculture, an option best avoided. The Committee recommended the Government to come up with a fresh road map for ensuring food security in coming years without jeopardizing the vast bio-diversity of the country and compromising with the safety of human health and livestock health.
It recommended that the Government of India is a signatory to the path breaking effort of IAASTD and would do well if they adopt this report as the way forward for development of agriculture and allied sectors in India, in a sustainable and environmental friendly manner, and with no unwanted risks to biodiversity, human and livestock health, flora and fauna. The Committee also desire to be apprised of the concrete action taken by the Government on each of the findings contained in IAASTD report during the four years after the release of the report.
The Committee stated that there was a need to have the considered views of the Department on the issue of GM food in general and Bt cotton oil entering our food supply without any information being provided to the consumer, from the point of view of Consumer Protection Act, consumer rights, informed consumer choice, etc., without any delay.
The Committee felt that the negative impact of genetically modified crops on the country’s agricultural exports needs to be factored in while taking a decision in regard to introduction of genetically modified crops.
The Committee recommended that “for the time being all research and development activities on transgenic crops should be carried out only in containment, the ongoing field trials in all States should be discontinued forthwith.” This is considering the flaws and the shortcomings in the functioning of the regulatory mechanism meant for the purpose, the lack of preparedness of various agencies who should ideally be involved in various oversight and both, pre and post commercialization surveillance responsibilities in the context of transgenic crops, the still unclear ramifications of transgenic crops on bio-diversity, environment, human and livestock health and sustainability.
The Committee recommended immediate regulation for labeling of genetically modified products including food crops, food and food products so as to ensure that the consumer is able to make an informed choice in the important matter of what she/he wants to consume.
As we can see above, the 31-member non-partisan Committee comprising members representing all major political parties in the country has been very rigorous in its comments. It will be very tough for the Government to go ahead with further promotion of GM crops in the country especially given the groundswell of opposition against GM food crops.