• Investment World
• eWorld
• Catalyst
• Mentor
• Life
• Canvas
• Praxis
• Urban Pulse
• Brand Quest

Harish Damodaran

NEW DELHI, Dec. 1

THE controversy over Proagro's genetically modified (GM) mustard is set to intensify, with the company questioning the need to conduct fresh open field trials of the hybrids under the direct supervision of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR).

``The Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), under the Ministry of Environment and Forests, is the final authority to decide on allowing commercial cultivation of our GM mustard hybrids. And as far as we know, the GEAC is only concerned with the food safety and toxicity aspects, and not agronomic performance evaluation, of the hybrids'', said Mr Clive J. Pegg, Managing Director, Proagro Seed Company Private Ltd.

According to Dr Paresh Verma, Director (Research) at Proagro, the company has, on its own, conducted detailed agronomic evaluation of the mustard hybrids. ``We started off with small-scale replicated field trials, including an initial hybrid trial in four locations during the 1997 planting season and two advanced hybrid trials in nine locations each during the 1998 and 2000 seasons. This was followed by large-scale field trials in the 2001 season across nine locations each in Rajasthan, Haryana and Madhya Pradesh and 10 locations each in Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat'', he noted.

Dr Verma claimed that in all these 69 trials conducted in five States, ``we have employed the same protocols that ICAR uses to evaluate yield, quality, maturity period, oil content and other agronomic parameters of its own test entries''. Moreover, the agronomic performance of the GM mustard hybrids has been evaluated vis-a-vis the best performing publicly bred national check varieties such as `Kranti' and `Varuna'. Under these circumstances, there was no need to conduct fresh trials under ICAR aegis, he added.

Incidentally, Proagro had made available seeds of its mustard hybrids — MT95003 and MT95005 — for testing under ICAR's multi-locational Advanced Varietal Trials (AVT) during the 2001 rabi season, as part of its All-India Coordinated Research Project on Rapeseed-Mustard (AICRPRM). However, since these trials could be carried out only in four locations — two in UP and one each in Rajasthan and Gujarat — these could not be described as `multi-locational'.

While the ICAR has maintained that trials in four locations were not good enough to generate reliable data on yields or net agronomic advantage of the GM hybrids, Proagro has contended that there was no need to conduct these trials in the first place.

``Such trials are done only for publicly bred varieties or hybrids that are certified by the Central Varietal Release Committee (CVRC). On the other hand, none of the hybrids bred by private seed companies go through the CVRC. And the fact that the hybrids of private breeders, despite not being officially certified, are doing much better compared to the hybrids bred by State-owned seed companies only shows that our trial systems are good enough'', Mr Pegg asserted.

But this is a point that ICAR is unlikely to concede, more so when the hybrids concerned here happen to be genetically engineered. In the case of Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Company's (Mahyco's) Bt cotton, the GEAC had directed the company to supply its seeds to ICAR for conducting multi-locational AVTs under the latter's All-India Coordinated Cotton Improvement Project. In fact, these trials were conducted during kharif 2001 in as many as 11 locations in Central and South India and it was only on the basis of these that the GM cotton hybrids were cleared for commercial cultivation in the current season.

``How can a different yardstick be used for GM mustard? Besides, even for credibility sake, it is better for a hybrid, especially a transgenic, to be released based on the agronomic evaluation conducted by an independent body such as ICAR rather than the company's own data. Who will believe Proagro's data?'' a senior ICAR official quipped.

Critics of GM mustard extend this argument to even question Proagro's decision to conduct food safety and toxicology studies of its products (including seeds, leaves, oil and meal) through private bodies such as the Delhi-based Shriram Institute for Industrial Research and Frederick Institute of Plant Protection and Toxicology, Chennai, instead of the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) or public institutions as the Indian Toxicology Research Institute, Lucknow and the Hyderabad-based National Institute of Nutrition.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail
Comment on this article to BLFeedback@thehindu.co.in

Stories in this Section
Paddy harvesting

Copyright © 2002, The Hindu Business Line. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu Business Line