The promise and performance of genetically modified crops in agriculture is once again under the spotlight, with the sanction given by the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee for confined field trials of several food crops. In its last days, the UPA government decided to end the moratorium on trial cultivation of these engineered varieties, and to allow experiments aimed at generating biosafety data. The GEAC has now taken further steps to allow field trials of rice, brinjal, mustard, chickpea and cotton, and import of GM soyabean oil. Clearly, there can be no credible argument against scientific experiments in agriculture that advance the goal of developing plant varieties that can withstand drought, resist pests and raise yields to feed the growing world population. But this should be done through a transparent regulatory process that is free of ethical conflicts. Proponents of GM crops funding research in agricultural universities represents one such conflict. To aid transparency, research findings should be made available in the public domain for independent study. But India has taken only halting steps towards establishing a strong regulatory system; the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India Bill, 2013, which provided for multi-level scientific assessments and an appellate tribunal, has lapsed.
While the Central government has not permitted the commercial cultivation of Bt brinjal in India, the recent case of neighbouring Bangladesh shows that regulatory mechanisms must be put in place before such crops are grown, whether for research or for the market — and they must be functional. Although the licence to produce the crop in Bangladesh required that the GM variety be isolated from indigenous ones to prevent genetic contamination, the condition was not followed. Field trials in India, in which the State governments have a say, must ensure that there are sufficient safeguards against such violations. If GM food is allowed to be sold to consumers, they must have the right to know what they are buying, and labelling should be made mandatory. Here again, the Bangladesh experience shows that such a condition may be difficult to enforce. There is no consensus on the performance of GM crops and the results have been mixed. They have had some beneficial impact on tillage practices and in terms of curbing the use of insecticides, but as the Union of Concerned Scientists in the U.S. points out, they have created monocultures and may be affecting birds and bees. All this underscores the need for a cautious approach — one that fosters scientific inquiry, allows for scrutiny and is underpinned by regulation. Enacting a comprehensive law that covers all aspects of GM crops should be a priority.
