The Supreme Court has once again upheld the importance of bio-safety when it comes to Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO), in its recent orders. The Centre had applied for a vacation of the court’s orders in September 2006, which directed the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) “to withhold (any) approvals till further directions are issued”.
In September, the court was not inclined to stop field trials, which included 90 Multi-Location Trials (MLTs), 32 experimental seed production, 18 strip trials and 5 pollen flow studies for a variety of crops. The GEAC’s meeting minutes between December 2006-February 2007 showcase its inability to keep track of where the field trials are happening.
As sowings for Kharif 2007 draw close, the GM “promoter-regulators” of the country, GEAC, along with the industry rushed to the Supreme Court praying for a vacation of the September orders, arguing that adequate framework exists to regulate GMOs. But the petitioners had enough evidence to show that the biosafety regime in India is seriously lacking and that field trials in a business-as-usual mode would jeopardise our environment irreversibly through contamination.

New conditions
On May 8 the court did not grant the Centre its prayer for a vacation on the ban on field trials. It clarified, if any trials are going on or are to go on pursuant to approvals granted between May 2 to September 22, 2006, they would be subject to additional conditionalities. The GEAC should ensure that there is no contamination from such trials to other fields close-by. The name of the scientist, who will be responsible and other details for all aspects of the trials should be reported to the GEAC and there should be a regular supervision by them. Prior to bringing out the GM material from the greenhouse for conduct of open field trials, the approved institution should submit a validated, event-specific test protocol at an Limit of Detection (LOD) of at least 0.01 per cent to detect and confirm that there has been no contamination.

The court also asked to see the toxicity and allergenicity data, if any, related to Bt cotton while allowing the GEAC to permit commercial releases for four approved species of GM cotton. However, it ordered that no further GM cotton species be approved.

Surprisingly, the ministry of environment and forests, housing the GEAC, put out a press release the next day which misreports the court’s orders in an irresponsible fashion as a vacation of the September 2006 orders. In addition to the court’s orders, GEAC, under pressure from farmers’ unions and civil society groups had already announced that field trial applications will be considered only if the applicant announces beforehand where the exact location of each such trial would be and with the prior written consent of the panchayat in whose jurisdiction such a trial is proposed to be taken up. Further, the department of biotechnology and GEAC have also announced that no GM rice experimentation will take place in the basmati belt.

Complexities
It is however not clear how they intend to prevent GM rice seed being tested elsewhere in the country from reaching the basmati belt, given their pathetic history of regulating illegal Bt cotton proliferation from Gujarat.
Meanwhile, there are various developments against GM crops in different states. In Tamil Nadu, after the PMK, it is now the turn of the AIADMK to take a formal stand against GM crops.

In Andhra Pradesh, the government is refusing to compromise on the pricing issue related to Bollgard II and is insisting on allowing sales only if the seed is priced at Rs 750 a packet. Further, the animal husbandry department recommended the stoppage of sales of Bt cotton seeds until it investigates into the phenomenon of toxicity to animals after grazing on Bt cotton fields.

After the Chattisgarh government, it is now the turn of the West Bengal government to order an inquiry into the field trials that had happened during Kharif 2006.

Now, the biotech industry and the GM regulators have an uphill task ahead in the coming year, having the Supreme Court, the state governments and various political parties holding them accountable, unlike in the past.