“The panel set up by the agriculture ministry will learn from other countries and involve agriculture and climate scientists from other countries who have worked on GM crops,” said the first of the two people cited above.
Another source said, “The Agriculture Ministry, in consultation with the Ministries of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Health and Family Welfare and the Department of Biotechnology, has constituted a panel of agriculture scientists, which will evaluate the research done on GM crops in other countries and submit its report in the next few months.”
Queries to know the names of the committee members could not be answered.
Queries sent to the ministries of Agriculture, Health, Environment, Science and Technology remained unanswered till the time of going to press.
“The committee members are scientists with expertise in rice, cotton and plant protection,” this person said.
The decision comes after the Supreme Court’s split verdict on July 23 in the GM mustard allowing case, in which the apex court had called for a comprehensive strategy to ensure the safety of GM crops, including mustard, for human consumption.
On October 25, 2022, the government approved the environmental release of indigenously developed GM mustard, aimed at reducing dependence on imported mustard oil, which accounts for about 60% of the country's edible oil consumption.
The approval comes a week after the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC), the apex environmental authority for GM crops, gave conditional approval for the release of GM mustard on October 18, 2022.
However, in November 2023, the government's push to release GM mustard was stayed after anti-GM crop activists filed a petition in the Supreme Court.
As in the rest of the world, GM crops remain controversial in India, which is a predominantly agricultural country. GM crops remain controversial because of their alleged impact on human and animal health and their potential to contaminate non-GM crops – a problem that can be severe in countries that do not have a robust system in place to track and trace crops.
While major agricultural exporting countries such as the US allow GM crops – including corn, soybeans, cotton, canola and sugar beets – The EU allows imports of GM crops only after a risk assessment by the European Food Safety Authority. The 27-nation group is also strict about labelling food and feed products that use GM crops. The EU allows GM soya and maize, which are used in animal feed.
BT Cotton
In India, Bt cotton is the only GM crop approved for cultivation, besides several others such as chickpea, pigeon pea, maize and sugarcane are in various stages of research and field trials. Sowing of mustard has been halted after the first trial.
Chirag Jain, partner and agricultural economist at Grant Thornton Bharat LLP, said, “Efforts have been made to bring in new technological interventions in the last two decades. However, GM acceptance has been slow among policymakers and stakeholders. A national policy in this regard would be helpful; however, there should be a time-frame for any such decision.”
“If we were to estimate, the people who have really suffered due to this delay are the farmers and taxpayers, whose money has been invested in paying the huge import bills,” Jain said.
“Tests have shown that GM mustard has given 28% higher yield than the traditional mustard variety Varuna. Research has also confirmed that the GM mustard hybrid is safe for cultivation and use for food and fodder,” he said, citing government claims submitted in the Supreme Court.
However, Swadeshi Jagran Manch national co-convener Ashwani Mahajan expressed concern, saying that the GM mustard quality added to the indigenous mustard seeds is not of Indian origin.
“We have a 13-point agenda to challenge their claims of indigenous characteristics. Even their claim of higher yield is a myth, and there are several other issues related to independent testing of seeds,” Mahajan said.
Meanwhile, farmers are demanding technological upgrades in Bt cotton (as GM cotton is called), arguing that outdated technology is hampering efforts to boost cotton production, which is on a declining trend.
“The world has moved to BG-III variety of Bt cotton, while in India we are still stuck with BG-II variety. With changing climatic conditions, new pests and weeds are emerging, making it difficult for cotton farmers to increase their yield,” said Ganesh Nanote, a cotton farmer from Vidarbha region of Maharashtra.
BG-II – or Bollgard-II – is a genetically modified cotton variety containing two Bt genes that confer resistance to bollworm and other pests, reducing pesticide use and improving crop safety.
Production of oilseeds
The production of oilseeds is projected to decline by 4.22% from 4.13 million tonnes in FY 2023 to 3.95 million tonnes in FY 2024. The production of cotton is also projected to decline from 33.66 million bales in FY 2023 to 32.52 million bales in FY 2024, a decline of 3.38%.
“There is no single document that defines and collates the roles of various agencies such as biotechnology, agriculture, environment department, Food Safety Standards Authority of India and state governments involved in the evaluation of GM crops,” said Dr Ratna Kumria, senior director, agricultural biotechnology, Federation of Seed Industry of India (FSII).
Of course, ecologists and other critics argue that GM crops can have unforeseen ecological consequences, such as harm to non-target organisms, the development of resistant pests, or disruption of local ecosystems.
“We need a national biosafety policy on GM crops and not a promotional policy. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Agriculture had also emphasised this in its 2012 report. The government must prioritise the protection of citizens from the risks of modern biotechnology besides other socio-economic considerations like farm livelihoods, trade security, etc,” said Kavitha Kuruganti, a key petitioner in the GM crops case.
“It is also important that the government undertakes a wide consultation process before formulating any policy,” said Kuruganti, leader of the Alliance for Sustainable and Holistic Agriculture (ASHA), which advocates for farmers’ rights, sustainable agriculture and opposes genetically modified crops.
During the hearing on July 23, Justice B.V. Nagarathna stressed that only foreign research studies were used to make recommendations, and pointed out the lack of Indian studies.
Justice Sanjay Karol said that the composition of GEAC is as per the rules. He said that this approval has been given by an expert body (GEAC) and hence such approval cannot be challenged.