At a time when India has stalled even field trials in genetically modified (GM) food crops, Bangladesh’s bio-safety regulator has reportedly granted the go-ahead for commercial planting of four Bt brinjal varieties. Adding to the irony is that the technology for inserting the alien gene — which confers resistance to the fruit and shoot borer — has come from an Indian company, Mahyco. The same firm had earlier developed Bt brinjal that was approved for commercial release in India by the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC). But the then Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh, in yet another ironic twist, chose to overturn the decision of the GEAC, which functions under the Ministry, by imposing a ‘moratorium’ on its release. Since then, not a single application for even conducting confined field trials of GM crop lines, whether to assess environmental risks or agronomic performance, has been processed. Effectively, a ban has been slapped not merely on commercialisation but also research.
Bangladesh’s regulatory approval for Bt brinjal may still have to overcome legal hurdles, but it would be a welcome thing if the decision provokes our policymakers to take a clearheaded view on GM crops. Can a country, home to over one-sixth of the world’s population — and with ever-growing food, feed and fibre needs that come with rising incomes — afford to say no to this technology? Transgenic crops, despite assumptions to the contrary, have been around for quite a while and are grown widely. Commercial planting began in the US in the mid-1990s; since then, there has been a huge proliferation with the Food and Agriculture Organisation estimating that about 150 million hectares was under GM cultivation in 2010. Countries as far-flung and diverse as China, Brazil, Australia and Egypt permit transgenic crops; so, surprisingly, do a few GM-phobic countries in Europe. It is one thing for a country to address, out of respect for consumer choices, issues relating to labelling GM products; people after all have a right to choose what they want to eat. But it quite another to allow the subversion of a regulatory process that puts GM crops through a slew of tests (including allergenicity, toxicity and agronomic value) before approval for commercial release.
Setting up an independent National Biotechnology Regulatory Authority, as recommended by a government-appointed task force some years ago, could help restore some sanity to the decision-making process relating to transgenic crops. On the one hand, it may prevent our political leaders from succumbing to pressure from misguided fear-mongering campaigns; on the other, it could instil public confidence that any GM crop cleared for release has been done so after a rigorous and independent process.