BTing the retreat

India says no to genetically modified brinjal pending scientific tests; farmers, greens welcome it

Scientists took five years to develop a genetically modified brinjal. Regulators took another four years to approve it for commercialisation. After seven public consultations in four weeks, Union environment minister Jairam Ramesh sealed Bt brinjal’s march towards the market!

The indefinite moratorium, Ramesh said, was in keeping with the Supreme Court’s precautionary principle in the absence of a scientific unanimity on the safety tests and Bt brinjal’s threat  potential to India’s 3,951 wild varieties.

This decision, however, is limited to Mahyco’s Bt brinjal. It will not be extended to any other biotech crop, including two other Bt brinjal varieties being developed by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research.  

Questions persist on whether the current regulatory mechanism is competent and transparent to take care of proper GM crop management, whether the government should wait for a National Biotechnology Regulatory Authority, better farmer awareness and a GM-labelling mechanism before allowing commercialisation of more GM crops.

The minister, who gave clear indications of a rethink on the GM policy on the day took over nine months ago, said he heard many voices in favour of Bt brinjal from the scientific community.

But those supportive voices also raised critical concern areas ranging from a clean regulatory system and adequate testing facilities to checks on the pest’s resistance to Bt toxin, the possibility of trans-genes moving to the wild and chronic health toxicity impacts of Bt brinjal.

Whither eco impact?  

Father of Green Revolution M S Swaminathan, whose opinion Ramesh appears to have valued the most before arriving at the decision, suggested studying the ecological impact of numerous wild varieties being replaced by one or two GM brinjal varieties and assessing the chronic effects of Bt brinjal consumption.

Ramesh also argued that many states, including West Bengal, Orissa, Bihar, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, which together account for 77 per cent of India’s brinjal production were against the Bt variety.

But the critics counter that states opposed when the Centre proposed the Value Added Tax, but instead of heeding the states’ advice, the Centre gradually converted them through a process. That practice was not followed here.

The public consultations gave the civil society organisations – who felt left out of the debate – a platform to air their views in an organised and collective way. However, the pitch was so intense, that the voices of those who were in favour of Bt brinjal were drowned.

The big question now is, does it augur a good precedent?

An essentially technical issue which needs to be addressed by scientists was decided by public sentiment, though many among the public do not have the required scientific knowledge to appreciate the question in the first place.

Didn’t Ramesh anticipate exactly this outcome when he planned his meetings? Will he follow the same practice in deciding other technical issues?

These are matters for further debate. For Mahyco’s Bt brinjal, it appears to be the end of the road, at the moment.

The Bt cotton experience

India’s cotton production was in constant crisis since independence. The scenario changed after Bt cotton was introduced in 2002. Cotton production went up from 176 lakh bales in 1996-97 to 315 bales in 2007-08, thanks to bt cotton.

From just three hybrids in 2002, there are 619 hybrids of Bt cotton being cultivated all over the country now.

Everything, however, is not hunky dory with Bt cotton. While GM cotton’s technological superiority and benefits is well acknowledged, a 10-year review has brought out several critical issues related to Bt cotton management, regulatory practices and farmers’ education. The review was conducted by Central Institute of Cotton Research (CICR),  Nagpur.

Boll worm is no longer a problem for Indian farmers. But since Bt cotton reduces pesticide sprays, a new set of pests has emerged causing economic loss. Some of these insects – never known to be associated with cotton – are spreading rapidly across India, necessitating immediate action.

Private sector seed firms have done little to educate farmers on Bt cotton, which gives best results only when optimal amount of water, soil nutrients, fertiliser and insecticides are used. Due to lack of education, farmers not only use chemicals arbitrarily but also make wrong choices in picking up the hybrids.

Absence of a grass root level regulatory system makes  matters worse. Rarely a refugia around the cotton fields is maintained, hastening the natural process of boll worm developing resistance to Bt toxin. The result - decrease in per hectare cotton production in the last two years. The CICR review calls for a cotton policy to sustain and enhance cotton productivity with GM cotton.