people politics policy performance

photo: arun kumar

Food for Thought

Suddenly GM
Regulators did not clear genetically modified crops for two years. Field trials and
oil imports got fast-tracked soon after the Modi government came to power. But
anti-GM groups are not as vocal in protest as they were a few years ago. Could it
have something to do with an IB report?
Shubhendu Parth

enetically
modified
(GM) food crops and
products will finally
make their way out
from labs to the fields
of India, something
quite unthinkable in
November 2013. This is just the beginning, by all indications. While GM soybean and canola oil may soon be part
of the Indian kitchen, the transgenic varieties of rice, wheat, brinjal, chickpea,
maize, sorghum and mustard are also
likely to reach our plates within three to
five years.
Paving the way for the food-grade
GM crop in India, the countrys biotech regulator, the genetic engineering appraisal committee (GEAC), on July
18 gave its go
ahead to

12 GovernanceNow | August 1-15, 2014

three applications for imports of GM

soybean oil. The statutory body, in its
121st meeting, also cleared the decks
for confined field trials, accepting 13
requests from the 15 cases evaluated.
GEAC chairman Hem Pande also announced the approval of field trials for
certain varieties of GM crops including rice, brinjal, chickpea, mustard
and cotton.
GEAC is the apex body constituted
under the ministry of environment
and forests (MoEF) to control the approval of activities involving largescale use of hazardous micro-organisms and recombinants in research
and industrial production. It is also
mandated with approving the re-

lease of genetically engineered organisms and products into the environment, including experimental
field trials.
The committee said it approved
three applications for import of GM
soybean oil on the basis of the fact that
highly processed foods like oil do not
contain detectable DNA or proteins.
The same was confirmed by the central food technological research institute (CFTRI), Mysore after testing of the
oil samples, it stated.
The approval came within less than
two months (53 days, actually) of the
new government taking over at the
centre. The approvals had been held
in abeyance for over two years after
the then environment minister Jayanthi Natarajan put her foot down.
Refusing to sign the file put
forth by GEAC, Natarajan
wrote to the PMO, saying the ministry
cannot approve

field trials of GM crops as the matter

was pending with the supreme court.
The case she referred to resulted
from a public interest litigation (PIL)
filed by the civil society group Gene
Campaign and activist Aruna Rodrigues,
seeking a blanket ban on field trials. The
court-appointed technical expert committee (TEC) had suggested an indefinite
moratorium on trials of GM crops unless shortcomings in the regulatory process were plugged. However, committee member Dr RS Paroda had given a
dissenting note on the moratorium and
submitted a separate report to the court.

Conflict within

The tug-of-war between the MoEF and

the rest of the UPA2 government, particularly the then agriculture minister
Sharad Pawar, in turn had left the GEAC
completely paralysed. It did not hold
even a single meeting between April
2012 and March 2014, thereby creating a backlog of 79 applications seeking
permission for field trials. These pending cases, recommended by the review
committee on genetic manipulation
(RCGM) under the department of biotechnology, included 37 cases of revalidation and 42 new cases that involved
confined field trials for the GM varieties of cotton, rice, castor, maize, wheat,
groundnut, sugarcane, chickpea, mustard, sorghum and brinjal.
However, Natarajan was not alone
in her belief that the country first
needs to put in place stringent regulations before it can allow agro-scientists
to pursue open field research that also
runs the risk of contaminating nearby
non-GM crops. Her predecessor Jairam
Ramesh had, in February 2010, stopped
the commercial launch of Bt brinjal
due to opposition from brinjal-growing
states Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh,
Karnataka, Bihar, West Bengal, Odisha, Uttarakhand and Madhya Pradesh
and on the ground that there was a
lack of consensus among the scientist
community.
Justifying the moratorium Ramesh
had said that it had been imposed to
allow scientific studies to establish the
safety of the product from the point of
view of its long-term impact on health
and environment. It was during his

term as the environment minister that

he suggested setting up a regulatory
authority for the biotechnology sector.

What changed the stance?

While the GEAC under the new NDA

government has decided to turn the tables by clearing the backlog, the ball was
set rolling by UPA2 itself with the removal of Natarajan. She was replaced by M
Veerappa Moily to soften the MoEFs
stand on various contentious issues and
to woo the industry at large ahead of the
parliamentary elections. One of the first
things that Moily did was to allow GEAC
to get back to routine.
Moilys go ahead on February 27 not
just enabled the GEAC to quickly call a
meeting on March 13 and give green
signal for the field trial of 11 transgenic crops. The ministers decision was
backed by the heavyweight Pawar, a
known proponent of GM crops, who
had made the agriculture ministrys proGMO stand very clear in the Lok Sabha.
Batting strongly in favour of the genetically engineered crops, Pawar had
cited the example of Bt cotton, saying

country was growing such crops and

even exporting them to India. They
are using, they are producing and they
are exporting to us. But when we think
of using these varieties here, definitely
there is opposition.
Moilys stand was that the GEACs
decision was not bound by the supreme
courts moratorium (on field trials) order. And though the regime and the
minister had changed, five months later Pande used almost the same words
to justify GEACs July 18 decision.
While UPA2 had prepared the
ground, it is Narendra Modis leadership that has propelled the GM story
further. During his 12 years as Gujarat
chief minister, Modi not only pushed
Bt cotton but also promoted the use of
biotech in agriculture in general. Fully
backing a modern technology that can
deliver economic gains never mind
the potential pitfalls has been the
hallmark of his style of governance.
He is prepared to ignore or even silence any criticism from the civil society and curiously, even in this regard,
UPA2 has prepared the ground for him

While UPA2 had prepared the ground, it is

Narendra Modis leadership that has propelled
the GM story further. As Gujarat chief minister,
Modi not only pushed Bt cotton but also
promoted the use of biotech in agriculture.
its success showed how farmers themselves opted for this crop which in
2012 had earned the country `21,000
crore from exports. I honestly feel
that the farmer of this country is wiser
than me... It is not proper to say that Bt
cotton is not useful, Pawar had said,
adding that farmers preferred genetically modified cotton as it gave higher
yield, was more disease resistant and
provided more profit.
Hitting out at the anti-GM crop
groups Pawar had also said that while
certain organisations based in the US
were engaged in propaganda against
genetically modified crops, their own

with the controversial intelligence bureau (IB) report that targeted several
prominent environmental activists
and groups including Greenpeace
(more on that later). The result is that
there has been no criticism, no opposition to the latest GEAC decision not
from the green groups. Ironically, the
only criticism comes from those elements within the Hindutva fold who
still swear by the Swadeshi ideology.
But it is a measure of Modis might that
even the criticism from these quarters
is muted in a sharp contrast to the Vajpayee era when the Swadeshi Jagaran
Manch used to have its say.

www.GovernanceNow.com 13

people politics policy performance

Food for Thought

The Approval Process

Applicant/
1
Investigator
2

institutional biosafety
committee

5
state governments
permission for sale

IBSC functions
To approve category I and II experiments
To recommend and to seek approval of
RCGM for category III experiments

Review committee on
genetic manipulation

Release for
open-field/
commercial
cultivation

Monitoring cum Evaluation

Committee

RCGM functions
To approve category III and field
experiments (BRL I)
To recommend generation
of appropriate Biosafety and
agronomic data

4
Genetic engineering
approval committee
brl-ii

Indian Council of Agricultural

Research

GEAC functions
To approve for large scale use (BRL II)
To approve open release to environment
To inform decision to administrative ministry and applicants/investigators
to follow PVP/Seeds Act

Regulatory framework

The regulatory framework for biotech

crops, animals and products in India
is governed by the Environmental Protection Act of 1986 and the Rules for
the Manufacture, Use/Import/Export
and storage of hazardous microorganisms/Genetically Engineered Organisms (GMOs) or Cells, 1989. These rules
govern research, development, largescale use, and import of the biotech organisms and their products. The rules
also identify six competent authorities
responsible for reviewing, evaluating
and approving GMOs in India: Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee
(GEAC), Review Committee on Genetic
Manipulation (RCGM), Recombinant
DNA Advisory Committee (RDAC),
State Bio-safety Coordination Committees (SBCC), District Level Committees
(DLC) and Institutional Bio-safety Committees (IBSC).
In 1990, the department of biotechnology (DBT), in the ministry of science
and technology (MoST), developed

14 GovernanceNow | August 1-15, 2014

MEC functions
To visit trial sites
To analyse data
To impact facilities
To recommend safe and
agronomically viable
transgenics

ICAR functions
To generate complete agronomic data on transgenics
To recommend suitable transgenics for commercial release

Recombinant Deoxyribonucleic Acid

(DNA) Guidelines, which were subsequently amended in 1994. In 1998, the
DBT issued separate guidelines for biotech plant research, including the import and shipment of biotech plants
for research use. In 2008, the GEAC
adopted guidelines and standard operating procedures for the conduct of
confined field trials. The GEAC also adopted new guidelines for safety assessment of foods derived from genetically
engineered plants.
On November 13, 2007, the MoST
unveiled a national biotechnology
strategy to strengthen the regulatory
framework, instituting a national biotech regulatory authority (NBRA) that
would provide a single window mechanism for biosafety clearance. In 2008,
the DBT issued a draft National Biotechnology Regulatory Bill, together with a
draft establishment plan for setting up
the NBRA. Following inter-ministerial
consultations with different stakeholders, the DBT subsequently drafted a

bishwajeet kumar singh

revised Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India Bill 2012 or BRAI (see

box on BRAI). The bill was introduced
in parliament on April 22, 2013. However, it could not be taken ahead by the
Manmohan Singh government and India continues to lack a strong mechanism for regulating the research and
manufacturing of biotechnology products. Pending parliamentary approval
of the BRAI, Indias regulatory mechanisms continue to be governed by the
EPA 1986 and the Rules of 1989.

GM crops: Lab to field

The GEAC is ultimately responsible for

approving all field trials. In 2008, GEAC
adopted an event based approval
system, reviewing the efficacy of the
event/trait, and focusing on biosafety, particularly on environment and
health safety. Before any biotech event
can be approved for commercial use,
it must undergo extensive agronomic
evaluation through field trials under
the supervision of the Indian council of

agricultural research (ICAR) or a state

agriculture university (SAU) for at least
two crop seasons.
Product developers can also conduct agronomic trials in conjunction
with the biosafety trials, or can also do
so separately after GEAC recommends
environmental clearance and the government of India gives final authorisation. For approval purposes, a stacked
event, even if consisting of already approved events, is essentially treated as
a new event.
However, India does not have any
specific regulations on co-existence between biotech and non-biotech crops.
On January 10, 2007, the GEAC decided
against allowing multi-location biotech
field trials in basmati rice growing areas, particularly in the states of Punjab,
Haryana and Uttarakhand. In early
2011, some state governments objected
to approval of biotech crop field trials
without state permission. On July 6,
2011, GEAC amended the procedures
for field trial authorisation, which now
requires the applicant (the technology
developer) to obtain a no-objection certificate (NOC) from the relevant state
government.
Applications that had previously
received approval from GEAC are also
required to get NOC from the state government before commencing the field
trials. Industry sources report that only
a few states like Punjab, Haryana, Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh (cotton only)
have issued NOCs for biotech field trials. As a result, a number of field trials
already approved by the GEAC in 2011
could not be taken further.
States such as Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Delhi NCR are in the process of
developing their own approval system.
Once an event is approved for commercial use, the applicant can register
and market seeds in various states according to the provisions of the National Seed Policy (NSP) 2002 and other relevant seed regulations specific to each
state. Following the commercial release
of a biotech crop, the ministry of agriculture, along with various state departments of agriculture, monitor field
performance for three to five years.
Experts, however, point to a conflict
of interest in the GEAC; members of the

apex regulatory body for GMOs include

developers of the technology. There is
no statutory regulatory body and so
the rules can be changed according to
the decision makers, points out Neha
Saigal, food and agriculture campaigner at Greenpeace India. She says the
country does not have provision for
public participation in approving open
air field trials at various stages.
As this a risky technology, public
opinion must be obtained. The GEAC
lacks transparency and it has not
been putting out minutes in the public domain. In fact, as sources have
informed, they have not recorded the

GM crop pitfalls
A recent peer reviewed report Late
Lessons from Early Warnings released
by the European Environmental
Agency clearly says that top-down
technologies like GM cannot help
achieve food security. In fact, GM
seeds are a huge burden on farmers
as they have patents associated with
them, so the only one who benefits
are the agri-corporations.
One of the failed promises by GM
crops is their pest resistance. As in
the case of Bt cotton, insects develop
resistance and secondary pests
develop, which actually increases
pesticide costs for farmers.
Another major threat of GM crops is
contamination, especially in a country
like India, where there is a growing
demand for organic food as well as a
potential to expand organic farming.
GM crops pose a huge risk to national
interest.
Apart from the increasing scientific
evidence on the adverse impacts of
GM crops on our health, GM crops also
pose a huge risk to the environment.
GM herbicide tolerant (HT) crops which
constitute 70 percent of GM crops
have led to an increase in herbicide
sprays and caused the problem of
super-weeds. In fact, GM-HT crops
will have an adverse socio-economic
impact in India as pointed out by MS
Swaminathan, as they will reduce the
role of women in Indian agriculture.
Source: Greenpeace

dissent expressed by certain members

on some of the approvals, she says
adding that GEAC does not have any
policy directive and is just playing the
role of a clearing house.
There is a lack of vital elements to
risk assessment, like long-term biosafety testing, socio-economic assessment
and need assessment. Finally, there
are no monitoring mechanisms and
no measures for reviewing, mitigating,
preventing and, if needed, revoking
proposals, Saigal says. (See interview)

The voice of dissent

It is interesting to note that while eminent agriculture scientists such as MS

Swaminathan and KC Bansal, director
of the national bureau of plant genetic resources, as well as Indian council
of agriculture research (ICAR) director-general S Ayyappan, have for long
been advocating in favour of the GM
crops in India, the TEC set up by the supreme court recommended a 10-year
moratorium for certain classes of GM
crops. This included food crops containing the Bt gene, herbicide-tolerant
(HT) crops, and crops for which India is
a centre of origin or diversity, based on
concerns such as health safety, socioeconomic consideration, gene flow.
The debate between pro- and anti-GMO groups has raged for over 12
years now, since 2002, when Bt cotton
was first introduced in India. The majority TEC report further helped amplify the voice of dissent from civil societies, political parties and their various
fronts and section of the agricultural
scientists as well.
The standing committee on agriculture led by Basudeb Acharia in its 37th
report on the Cultivation of Genetically Modified Food Crops Prospects and
Effects had also expressed concerns
about the lack of adequate regulatory
framework for GM crops. The committee also noted that the existing framework did not provide for mandatory
consultations with state governments
or seek their permission to conduct
open field trials. Based on the findings,
the report recommended that all research and development activities on
transgenic crops should be carried out
only in laboratories and the ongoing

www.GovernanceNow.com 15

people politics policy performance

Food for Thought

Upfront

Neha Saigal, food & agriculture campaigner, Greenpeace India

GEAC has
ignored the right
of consumers

How do you react to the decision by the GEAC to approve

field trial of GM crops, particularly since the matter is
still pending at the supreme court?

The GEAC comes across as a rubber stamp for the industry

as it claims to have approved 60 of the 70 pending applications. This comes at a time when the issue around the safety
of open air field trials is debated in the supreme court and
there is no final verdict. This was the very reason that former

field trials in all states be discontinued.

With the advent of the BJP after garnering a clear majority in the general
elections, however, there has been a
new twist in the tale. During the UPA
regime, opposition to GM crops came
from the minister of environment and
forests, while the ministry of agriculture
and the PMO strongly backed them. In
the new government, agriculture minister Radha Mohan Singh is not very
comfortable with the idea of the transgenic crops and open field trials. While
the minister is said to have expressed
his reservation in private conversations,
the ministry has decided not to oppose it
due to political compulsions.
Prakash Javadekar, minister of environment and forests, has tried to
soften the impact of the GEAC decision and pacify the right-wing activist groups when he reacted to former BJP ideologue and chief of the
Rashtriya Swabhiman Andolan KN

16 GovernanceNow | August 1-15, 2014

environment minister Jayanthi Natrajan had kept GM field trials on hold. Added to this, the scientific panel appointed by
the supreme court, the technical expert committee (TEC), in its
final report has strongly recommended stopping all open air
field trials, realising their potential to contaminate our food
supply and environment. One wonders what scientific evidences the GEAC is actually listening to or is it listening at all.
The functioning of the GEAC should be questioned as it has approved these field trials in the most non-transparent way and
it has not made available in the public domain the minutes of
the last couple of meetings. Therefore, there is no way for the
public to know the decisions that have been taken.

GEAC has also approved import of GM soybean and

canola oil. How do you view that? How would the users
determine whether it is safe for consumption?

There is a high potential that there will be foreign DNA in

Javadekar tried to
soften the impact of
the GEAC decision
and pacify the rightwing activist groups
when he reacted to KN
Govindacharyas tweet.
Govindacharyas tweet. While Govindacharya had tweeted that the decision was an anti national decision
#Modi ministry to promote GM crops
and damage soil and agriculture #India, Javadekar responded with a separate tweet saying: Field trials of #GMCrops is not a Government Decision. It
is a recommendation of a Committee.

What has come as a big shocker is

the fact that the major voice of dissent has come from BJPs own quarter Bharatiya Kisan Sangh (BKS) and
Swadeshi Jagaran Manch (SJM), two
Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)inspired organisations. While the two
organisations did not mince words
while criticising the approval for field
trials of GM crops, the known voice of
dissent Greenpeace, Navdanya, Gene
Campaign and majority of the NGOs
have been more or less mute, except
for the few blogs or comments that
have gone as part of the media stories.

Why are the NGOs quiet?

Talking about the rather sober reaction

of the NGOs, Kavitha Kuruganti of Alliance for Sustainable & Holistic Agriculture (ASHA) said that she was confused
with the statement made by Javadekar, who has tried to shirk the governments responsibility by saying it was

GM soybean and canola oil. Again, this decision taken by

the GEAC is not assessing the complete scientific evidence
that is available. Taking the example of a study published in
the Food Research International journal clearly points out
that it is possible to detect and quantify genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in fully refined soybean oil. GEAC
has once again ignored the right of the consumers to choose
what they want to eat as we do not have a functional labelling law in this country. While there was a gazette notification by the consumer affairs ministry in 2013 that made it
mandatory for all packaged food producers to disclose GM
ingredients if any, this has not been enforced. It is highly
irresponsible for the GEAC, considering we dont have a labelling regime.

How do you react to Prakash Javadekars tweet that

Field trials of #GMCrops is not a Government Decision.
It is a recommendation of a Committee. How should
the country interpret this?

This definitely cannot be seen as an assurance by the environment and forest minister, though one can see that he has
distanced himself from the decision of the GEAC. Citizens of
this country would like to hear that the minister has rolled
back these GEAC approvals as they are against science as
well as public interest.

Has your organisation made any representation

regarding the GEAC decision?

The Coalition for a GM Free India, a large and informal

GEACs recommendation.
The GEAC makes a recommendation only after a go ahead from RCGM
and is deemed to be permission for
open field test, provided the company
gets the NOCs from state governments
after which the permission letters are
issued. In fact, GEACs recommendation is the first step in permitting trials and whatever the minister might
claim, the GEAC meeting itself is a GoI
decision. She, however, skirted the
question why the NGOs were not raising the issue in a big way, as in past.
According to a senior department
of biotechnology official and industry
sources, the recent intelligence bureau
(IB) report on concerted efforts by select
foreign-funded NGOs to take down Indian development projects seems to have
pushed to the wall major NGOs, including Greenpeace. The IB and home ministry turning the heat on NGOs named
in the report, particularly organisations

nationwide network of organisations and individuals that

Greenpeace India is also a part of, has written to the environment minister to roll back these approvals. We have not
written to GEAC at this point of time; over the years it has
proven to be a discredited organisation. We have not heard
back from the minister.

Going ahead, how do you plan to address the GM Crop

issue in India?

Greenpeace India will continue to work with many stakeholders to ensure that there is an informed debate on GMOs
in the country and to ensure that there are no open environmental releases of GMOs. At the same time, we will keep
reminding the new government on its promise to take a
precautionary approach to GMOs, given the increasing scientific evidence on the adverse impact of GM crops on our
health, environment and farmer livelihood.

It is surprising that the ruling BJPs allies have been more

vocal in their opposition to the GEACs decision than the
NGOs fighting for the cause for years now. Why?

These voices of opposition to GM crops of BJP allies like the

Swadeshi Jagaran Manch or the Bharatiya Kisan Sangh of the
RSS have been present even when Bt brinjal was approved
or when the UPA government wanted to pass the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) Bill in parliament.
They have been noticed much more in the current scenario with the new government in place and their relationship
with the ruling party. n

leading the anti-GMO campaign, seems

to have helped the government buy
their silence, said an industry expert
who did not wish to be named.
The IB report states that: Five Indian activists and six NGOs (five FCRA
registered) including Greenpeace are at
the forefront of anti-GMO activism in
India. Anti-GMO activism was initiated
in 2003 by Vandana Shiva (Navdanya /
FCRA; Consultant Greenpeace Australia) and was followed by Suman Sahai
(Gene Campaign / FCRA; PIL in SC in
2004 and 2007). Competing with Gene
Campaign, Aruna Rodrigues filed a PIL
through Prashant Bhushan in 2005.
From 2010 onwards Kavita Kuruganti
(Alliance for sustainable and holistic
agriculture or ASHA and India for safe
food or IFSF) also joined the campaign.
The report also indicates that in the
last four years these four activists have
received increasing support and resources from Greenpeace International,

through its Indian subsidiary. A significant portion of foreign funding for

these NGOs was sourced from German
donors such as Greenpeace International, EED, Bread for the World and
Misereor, the report says, adding that
the manner of free-funding for these
NGOs can be observed from the fact
that ASHA and its IFSF are headquartered with four prominent anti-nuclear
NGOs (two FCRA registered) at a single
address in Katwaria Sarai in New Delhi.
Reacting to the IB report, Vandana
Shiva, Aruna Rodrigues and Kavitha
Kuruganti in a joint statement have
raised the issue of a foreign hand in
the report. In a joint press release they
also raised the issue of Indias sovereignty, security and freedom at risk. Is
the IB being used by foreign corporations to take over Indias vital seed sector? the release asked. n
parth@governancenow.com

www.GovernanceNow.com 17