GM technology has stagnated for 20 years since Bt Cotton’s approval by the Vajpayee government and its subsequent success. The only contented groups are those advocating a GM-free India and some ideological critics. Farmers, however, are suffering from stagnant yields and a lack of global competitiveness. Industries such as textiles, which face cotton shortages, and poultry feed sectors, affected by high prices of feedstock, are also unhappy. These issues are expected to worsen as demand increases and climate change adds further challenges.
Multiple arguments are used by activists, and sometimes by legal professionals, to stall the progress of GM. Safety concerns, seed monopoly by corporates and MNCs, ineffective working of regulatory body GEAC (Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee), need for natural farming, potential harmful effects of herbicide tolerance technology for labour and environment, and so on. All these arguments ignore the challenges and drudgery faced by our farmers and their demand for improved economics of the crops they cultivate.
GM Mustard hybrid technology, developed by Delhi University with funding from NDDB and other public sources, is crucial for increasing yield and reducing the ₹1.5 lakh crore edible oil import bill, much of which consists of GM oils. Despite completing over 15 years of regulatory evaluations and third-party data generation, the technology remains stuck due to opposition that selectively uses different arguments. This perpetual resistance harms our farmers, who face yield stagnation, rising labour costs, and new climate-related challenges. GM crops are caught in a quicksand of endless debate, leaving little hope for progress.
Key elements
To streamline the process, three key elements must be addressed: scientific assessment, the necessity of the technology, and the industrial policy surrounding it. Activists often mix arguments across these areas, confusing the public, demonising the technology, and demoralising the scientists who have dedicated decades to its development.
The first step is a scientific assessment of safety. A GM trait must undergo rigorous evaluation based on established guidelines. Strengthen data requirements if needed, but once set, these guidelines are final. Independent scientists must do this assessment. Currently, Review Committee on Genetic Manipulation (RCGM), under the Ministry of Science and Technology, prescribes the protocols for data generation and then assesses the data submitted before forwarding it to GEAC. This is the same process followed for rDNA products in healthcare like vaccines, hormones and enzymes. It would be preposterous to believe that RCGM and GEAC are efficient for healthcare products and not for crops. It’s crucial that this assessment remains purely scientific, free from influence by industry, public opinion, or political forces. This safety assessment must be final. We must trust our regulators across all fields.
The next step is assessing the need. After a trait is deemed safe, a committee comprising economists, scientists, biotech industry experts, bureaucrats, farmers, and others should evaluate whether the technology is addressing a critical need and is necessary for India. This evaluation may be specific to certain crops, traits, sectors or regions and should be completed within six months. The committee should have the legal authority to make this decision.
The final step is industrial policy. Once a technology passes safety and need assessments, the government determines the industrial policy. This includes decisions on whether the technology is reserved for Indian companies, public institutions, or if multinationals are allowed. The appropriate ministry sets guidelines to ensure competition and prevent monopolies, aiming for a timely decision. Once cleared, the technology is ready for commercialisation. A time-frame of three months is appropriate for this decision.
The government funds many biotechnology projects, including GM technology, through the Department of Biotechnology. If these technologies aren’t cleared for commercialisation, it results in wasted public money. Often, negative public perception, fuelled by misconceptions and a lack of accurate information, is cited by activists to oppose such technologies. To counter this, 10 per cent of the government’s biotech development budget should be allocated to public education, maximising the value of these innovations for farmers and consumers.
The writer is adviser to Federation of Seed Industry of India. Views are personal