Those who monetarily benefit from getting the Government to accept BT brinjal in our country are doing what it takes by garnering political and public support. Multinationals like Monsanto, and Indian companies like Avesthagen who are working on integrating conventional plant breeding with biotechnology together with scientists who have and are researching on BT crops are putting tremendous pressure on our politicians to ignore the drawbacks and resultant harm. Some have even suggested that GM crops can help organic farming by being designed to resist pests. (Organic produce could not only be GM, but even now the organic fertilisers utilised in their production could very well have ingredients such as bone, blood and other animal body parts. In short, organic only implies that no agrochemicals such as pesticides, insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, fumigants, rodenticides, complex fertilisers, etc. have been utilised.)

Greenpeace says that independent scientists have proved laboratory rats that ate BT corn suffered from liver and kidney damage so there is no telling what will happen to humans who consume BT crops. In Australia rats that were fed GM peas suffered from lung inflammation and reduced immunity. Let us however not forget that the American agencies promoting GM crops in India a big way are Monsanto, United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Cornell University, etc. whose mission is to make farmers absolutely dependent upon them in so much as they would eventually have to purchase seeds from them. Corporations create such bizarre foods, not with the view of helping farmers or solving food crisis, but for their own benefit of obtaining patents. No wonder farmer suicides in India are on the rise.

It is significant that a trip for a newspaper article sponsored by the Agricultural Biotechnology Support Project-II (ABSP-II) of the Cornell University (supported by the USAID) states that various studies conducted on BT brinjal for safety include acute toxicity and feed studies in rats, rabbits and goats were conducted at Advinus Therapeutics at Bangalore, the effect on health of broiler chickens at Central Avian Research Institute at Izatnagar, feeding studies in lactating crossbred dairy cows at the GB Pant University and also in fish at Central Institute of Fisheries Education at Mumbai.

It was not possible to segregate normal rice and corn from the rice and corn engineered to produce drugs for pigs. The Starlink corn containing an allergen was only meant for animal feed in America, but it some how got mixed up with the other corn and believe it or not, landed up in corn products of Japan, UK, Canada and some European countries. Bayer’s GE rice also escaped from their trial plots closed down in 2001 and was found in Europe and New Zealand in 2006. And GE rice from China is being found in Europe.

Monsanto’s GM crops containing pesticides kill honey bees. Therefore in 2011, the company purchased the world’s largest bee research firm called Beeologics. They felt the solution will be achieved by producing GM bees! Little wonder that Monsanto has been rated as the worst for its ongoing work to threaten human health and the environment.

There is no doubt that genetically engineered crops are unsafe for bees because they play a key role in plant reproduction via pollination. In any case activists object to all genetically engineered/modified (read unnatural and potentially harmful) crops such as soya, maize, mustard, potato, banana, cotton, rubber, etc.

In 2014, an American company, J R Simplot Co produced GM potato which got the approval for commercial planting from the US Department of Agriculture. In the 1990s GM potatoes had failed, so to ensure acceptance health benefits were focused upon – that the new GM potatoes (named Innate potato) would contain less of a cancer causing chemical!

The Institute for Responsible Technology reported that scientists had undertaken genetic engineering by breaching species barriers. Some of them were:

• Spider genes were inserted into goat DNA, in hopes that the goat milk would contain spider web protein for use in bullet-proof vests.

• Cow genes turned pigskins into cowhides.

• Arctic fish genes gave tomatoes and strawberries tolerance to frost.

• Jellyfish genes lit up pigs’ noses in the dark.

• Potatoes were developed that glowed in the dark when they needed watering. This was also done by implanting florescent genes from jellyfish.

• Human genes were inserted into corn to produce spermicide.

In addition to inserting human genes in corn, human genes were also engineered with sugarcane and rice, field trials for which were underway somewhere in the world.

A UK company called Moolec has created transgenic soya beans called “Piggy Sooy” in which a quarter of the protein is pig protein in place of plant protein. The company is also creating pea plants that contain beef proteins. It claims that the products will provide similar taste, texture and nutritional value as meat, but without the high costs associated with cultured meat production. They justified themselves by pointing out that 98% of all soy grown in the USA is GM and the success of Impossible Foods shows that consumers aren’t deterred by GM products. Impossible Foods’ key ingredient is modified yeast and GM yeast is produced using heme protein or with rennin – animal rennet which comes from stomachs of unweaned calves, the use of which is banned in India for cheese making.

Nature gave living organism barriers to protect themselves against the introduction of DNA from a different species, so genetic engineers found ways to force the DNA from one organism to another. These include:

• Using viruses or bacteria to “infect” animal or plant cells with the new DNA.

• Coating DNA onto tiny metal pellets, and firing it with a special gun into the cells.

• Injecting the new DNA into fertilized eggs with a very fine needle.

• Using electric shocks to create holes in the membrane covering sperm, and then, forcing the new DNA into the sperm through these holes.

It is significant that in January 2012, the German chemical group BASF abandoned efforts to sell genetically modified products in Europe, including its Amflora potato, because of overwhelming opposition to the technology. Unfortunately BASF began focusing on markets in Asia and America so we in India need to watch out for their other potatoes including a disease resistant variety called Fortuna and a disease-resistant variety of wheat! Eventually in February 2014, the Ministry of Environment & Forests, for reasons best known to them, confirmed that field trials of GM crops would be supported by them.

The above was a clear sign of the difficulties for the biotechnology industries in Europe including in areas like nanotechnology and animal cloning. And it was hailed by environmentalists as yet another nail in the coffin for GM foods in Europe. However, also in February 2014, after 13 years, 6 scientific opinions and 2 legal challenges, an insect-resistant type of corn (the third GM crop to be authorised) was on the verge of being approved by the EU despite opposition from 19 of 28 member countries – and the European Parliament.

In August 2013 when opposition to GM foods began mounting in 60 nations, protesters literally destroyed fields of GM Golden Rice in the Philippines. (Other crops trampled thus include grape vines in France, sugar beets in Oregon USA, potatoes in Belgium and wheat in Australia.) Research on Golden Rice began before the turn of the century and although it has been fostered by multinational agro-giants like Monsanto and Syngenta, and global NGOs like the Rockefeller, Ford, and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundations, it remains controversial and faces stiff public resistance. Luckily Golden Rice is not likely to be readily accepted by consumers because the fact remains that brown rice which is nutritionally far superior to white rice is shunned by most rice eaters. In India it has been termed “a Trojan horse” and a “hoax”.

It is worth noting that the same 2013 article from which above information was gathered stated: “Despite 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialisation, biotechnology has failed to significantly increase US agricultural yields, according to a recent report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, which says that organic agriculture often tops the productivity of GM crops on a per acre basis. Nor has genetic engineering cut the use of agro-chemicals, as promised. Reuters reports that popular genetically modified varieties like Monsanto’s Roundup Ready corn and soybeans actually require more herbicide than their conventional cousins, due in part to the development of resistant “super weeds” that need ever-more-toxic dousing to kill them… The technology has been a wildly lucrative profit centre for biotech companies like Monsanto, Bayer and Syngenta – and their shareholders. Whether it can profit the rest of us with more abundant, safe and nutritious food remains to be demonstrated.”

The Hippocrates Health Institute website states that doctors and animals alike tell us to avoid genetically modified food. The following extract explains their stand:

“The farmer grinned as he told the visitor, “Watch this!” He called his pigs, which ran frantically towards him to be fed. But when he scooped out corn and threw it on the ground, the pigs sniffed it and then looked up at the farmer with confused expectation. The farmer then scooped corn from another bin and flung it near the pigs, which ran over and quickly devoured it. The farmer said, “The first corn is genetically engineered. They won’t touch it.”

“It is not just pigs that swear off genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in South Africa. Chickens won’t eat genetically modified (GM) corn. Most buffalo in Haryana, India, refuse cottonseed cakes if made from GM cotton plants. Geese migrating through Illinois only munched sections of the soybean field that was non-GMO. When given a choice, elk, deer, raccoons, and rats all avoided GMOs. And even during the coldest days of Iowa winter, squirrels, which regularly devour natural corn, refused to touch the GM variety.

“No one knows why the animals refuse GMOs, but according to a 2009 statement by the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM), when lab animals do eat GM feed, it’s not pretty. “Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food,” says the AAEM policy paper, which specifically cited infertility, immune problems, accelerated ageing, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs, and the gastrointestinal system, among the impacts of eating GMOs. “There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects,” they wrote. “There is causation…” Although we humans don’t have a natural sense to stay away from GM foods, AAEM’s position indicates that we should take a lesson from the animals. This renowned medical organization, which first recognized such dangers as food allergies, chemical sensitivity, and Gulf War Syndrome, called on all physicians to prescribe non-GMO diets to all patients.” They also called for a moratorium on GMOs, long-term independent studies, and labelling.”

September 2012 saw Russia suspending the import and use of Monsanto’s GM corn after a study suggested that the corn may cause cancer.

A 2013 Australian study conducted at the Institute of Health and Environmental Research (published in the Journal of Organic Systems) stated that pigs fed genetically engineered soy and corn showed a 267% increase in severe stomach inflammation (photos revealed stomachs having turned into mush) compared to those fed non-GMO diets. In males, the difference was even more pronounced: a 400% increase. It was explained that GM corn has deadly insecticide in each and every kernel. If an insect eats it, it dies due to damage to its digestive system. The insecticide permanently remains in the corn kernels and has similar adverse results on all mammals that consume it.

This must be the reason why fruit like cube or square melons, perfectly shaped ruby red grapes, and pears grown in narrow necked glass bottles, are being promoted at exorbitant prices in Japan in particular – but without declaring if GM or not. Perfectly formed fruit like square melons can be easily grown if the flower is carefully encased in a box of the desired shape and size, but the plants could very well have been genetically altered like the Flavr Savr tomatoes mentioned in the beginning of this article.

Allergies can flare up as it so happened when genes from Brazil nuts were inserted into soy beans in USA. Those allergic to nuts suffered till they got to know – the GM product was discontinued. The British Medical Association has also claimed that antibiotic resistant marker genes compacted into certain GM crops get transferred to disease-causing microbes in the gut of humans and animals creating antibiotic resistant microbes. Therefore the bottom line is labelling that is essential not only to identify allergens but for ethical and cultural reasons because animal genes in plants are mostly unacceptable.

India’s import of fruit and vegetables has risen by 25% from 2013 to 2023 especially from countries that produce GM varieties; and as only 2% of labs in India are capable to checking if foods contain GMOs how can we be sure of what we are consuming?

Since 2005 BT cotton had been causing “crop failure” resulting in a loss of Rs 2,000 crore annually. Therefore, Maharashtra government’s agricultural universities with the help of private companies, in August 2012 began phasing out BT cotton beginning by banning with immediate effect the sale and distribution of cotton seeds by MAHYCO. It was felt that farmers will be better off using traditional varieties of cotton seeds. Strangely, exactly one year later (August 2013) it was stated that 90% of the cotton grown in India was BT cotton and that the yield of cotton in the country had increased, but no data had been separately maintained on the production rate or yield of BT cotton!

Few are aware that children are made to carry out artificial pollination in the BT cotton fields of North Gujarat and elsewhere. In fact, 70% of child labour violations occur in the agriculture sector despite the existence of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, and the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights.

In November 2012, possibly because the Union Minister of Agriculture supports GM crops, the Maharashtra state government had modified its stand by setting up a 10-member committee under the scientist Anil Kokodkar to evaluate impact of GM crop field tests and to consider proposals from companies who want to conduct such tests. However the state does not have a clear cut strategy on GM crops. On one hand it has taken GM seed manufacturers to task over quality, and on the other hand it is seeking to allow field tests.

In-between a Parliamentary committee on agriculture demanding not only a ban on field trials on all GM crops, but also a thorough probe into why BT brinjal (and for that matter BT cotton) first came to be approved by GEAC. (Maize was the second GM crop approved, and as many as eight others – rice and vegetables – are at different stages of trails.) The committee implied that top scientists who felt GM produce was safe and fit for human consumption were colluding with the seed and biotechnology industry. This was again proved when Australian scientists shared their GM banana technology with Indian scientists even though India is the world’s largest producer of bananas, a well established, nutritious fruit.

Banana Bio-Fortification developed by Queensland University of Technology, Australia was transferred to 5 institutions in India:
• National Agri-Food Biotechnology Institute (NABI), Mohali, Punjab
• National Research Centre for Banana, Tiruchirapalli, Tamil Nadu
• Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Centre for Plant Molecular Biology & Biotechnology (CPMB), Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu
• Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC), Trombay, Mumbai, Maharashtra
• Indian Institute of Horticultural Research, Bengaluru, Karnataka.
They are using GE (genetic engineering) for bio-fortification of bananas with iron and Pro-Vitamin A (PVA). In reply to BWC’s queries asking if animal origin iron and PVA were being used for GE bananas, we were informed by two institutions that they “used gene sources from the banana itself for PVA enrichment and from rice for iron enrichment.”

The strange thing is that rice was the source for iron enrichment in bananas, whereas rice itself was being fortified with iron.

For detailed information on Fortified Foods please read:
http://www.bwcindia.org/Web/Awareness/LearnAbout/FortifiedFoods.html

In April 2013 Greenpeace declared that of those who responded to their opinion poll “Is genetically modified food necessary for India’s food security” 97% said that GM food is not a necessity. Looking back, the government had failed to introduce BT brinjal and were unable to pass the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) bill – both solely because of public opposition. And, last but not least, people did not want persons who favour GM crops to be empowered by government to take decisions in this regard. Greenpeace rightly felt that the need was for a law that protected our food and agriculture from dangerous technologies like GM (and Monsanto) in place of the flawed BRAI.

However, seeking to overcome resistance from the state governments of Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, and West Bengal, the Ministry of Science and Technology (Government of India) quietly introduced the BRAI bill in Parliament in April 2013 “to promote safe use of modern biotechnology”. Promoters would not be regulators; the Ministry of Health and Ministry of Environment & Forests were not included; and the bill does not allow Right to Information in order to protect “confidential commercial information”. It seemed to be a lost battle for us in India with the government allowed to make farmers grow GM seeds which would result in adversely affecting not only the environment but also our health. But then in July 2013 the Supreme Court appointed panel (Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science & Technology, Environment & Forests reviewed and gave recommendations on the BRAI Bill) failed to reach a unanimous decision. Five members of the Technical Expert Committee recommended an indefinite ban on GM food crops whereas one dissented. It is therefore still uncertain whether GM crops will be commercially released in India.

Meanwhile, more and more countries are rejecting Monsanto… in June 2013, while backing away from Europe, Monsanto declared that they would not be seeking approval for their new GM seeds in Europe because no one there wanted them for cultivation. However, the fear is that this much hated, moneyed and powerful corporation may surreptitiously introduce their seeds in the region just as it is believed, they have in the past, done elsewhere. It is good that Hungary destroyed entire shipments of GM seeds. But, GM soy and corn continue to be grown in America and are thrust upon countries like India and China despite unethical corporate control over food sources, loss of biodiversity, adverse impact on environment, and known and unknown health hazards upon humans and animals. In November 2013 China rejected US corn cargo due to unapproved GMO variety of grain, but it was reported that the strain (MIR 162) was likely to be approved soon! Most Chinese fear that GM crops, namely corn and soy, cause infertility and therefore refuse to let their children eat them. The government’s campaign of 2014 to promote GMOs came when meat consumption had risen to an all time high.

It was a big surprise and set back in February 2014 when the Union Minister for Environment & Forests cleared with immediate effect GM crop trials by approving the March 2013 decision of the GEAC to allow more than 200 successful gene modification trials for rice, wheat, maize, castor and cotton. Trials of GM rice would be conducted by Bayer Bioscience, MAHYCO and BASF India. (In January 2014 the newspapers reported that MAHYCO and Arcadia Biosciences of US had announced that they had developed salt tolerant rice and that the technology enabled plants to produce increased yields under saline water and soil conditions thus expanding the range of acreage for crop production.) In addition MAHYCO would grow GM wheat; Monsanto India would test GM maize; Hyderabad-based Directorate of Oilseeds Research would conduct GM castor re-approved field trials; and, GM cotton varieties would be grown by Bayer, BASF and MAHYCO. This was soon followed by the Indian Council for Agricultural Research (ICAR) scientists mooting for these field trials without NOCs (non-objection certificates) from state governments. Last but not least, it was obvious that the political party whose reign was coming to an end had made these decisions in a desperate attempt to win votes – even those in favour of GM believed the clearance was half-baked, while those like us who are against GM, felt that the decision was in violation of the Supreme Court’s directions.

The newly elected Government at the Centre cautiously put 15 GM crop field trials on hold despite a spate of articles in various publications promoting GM crops for food security and blaming the Government for being anti-science! With 70 more applications for field trials pending, not only the Government of India, but state governments didn’t want GM either.

In 2022 GM crops remained mired in complex procedural issues although the Haryana government gave MAHYCO a NOC (no-objection certificate) to seed major filed trials of herbicide-tolerant (HT) and insect-resistant BT cotton variety called BG-3RRF. The application for field trials for this had been first submitted to the GEAC (Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee) in 2016, but was subsequently withdrawn because they had stopped giving NOCs. Illegal sales of HT-Bt cotton had therefore flourished: 20% of the total cotton acreage in India was estimated to be under illegally grown HT-Bt cotton.

Compromises

In USA too several companies are also modifying crops using techniques that are outside the jurisdiction of the Agriculture Department or use new methods like “genome editing” that were not envisioned when the regulations were created. It seems that by inactivating a gene, the crop would be no different from which could be obtained through natural mutations and conventional breeding.

By 2017 a technique called Crispr was established that produced super crops by gene-editing. Claimed to be different from GMO foods, these are altered foods nevertheless.

In December 2014, the EU member nations reached a compromise on GM crop policy. Till then all nations had to honour approvals which involved the European Food Security Authority to present a risk-assessment report to the European Commission, which then took a decision that had to be approved by a “qualified majority”. Therefore, nations resisting GM had managed to hold up approvals like that of a GM maize variety since 1996. Now onwards, member states have the power to overrule EU approvals of GM crops in their jurisdictions. Unfortunately, this compromise will fast-track GM approvals and make the global acreage under GM rise above the existing 81% for soy and 64% for cotton.

There is a not so subtle a push to undertake more GM trials in India too, particularly brinjal. Spreading via cross pollination, brinjal and mustard plants will positively all turn GM just as BT cotton. Non-GM cotton seeds are unavailable and GM ones are expensive, so most of the time spurious BT cotton seeds are sold to poor farmers whose crops fail. India has become the largest exporter of BT cotton not because of increased output as such, but because the area across irrigated regions has dramatically increased. No different to the soy story of Latin America.

Outside ICAR’s Directorate of Rapeseed and Mustard Research, Bharatpur, Rajasthan (DRMR) activists strongly objected to the environmental release of GM mustard in November 2022 since it had not been proven to have any yield advantage. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court put planting of GM mustard on hold since it had been pointed out by the petitioners to be hazardous; and earlier the court-appointed technical expert committee had advised herbicide-tolerant crops. GM mustard contains Barnase, Barstar and Bar genes isolated from a soil bacterium.

A week later the Government of India informed the Supreme Court that GM mustard was hybrid DMH-11 and had not been developed using herbicide tolerant (HT) technology. It was further stated that “as India was importing and consuming oil derived from GM crops, opposition to such technologies based on unfounded fears will only hurt the farmers, consumers and the industry”. At the next hearing of this plea challenging the sowing of genetically modified mustard in the country, the SC said it would not get into the technical aspects of the case but examine the judicial part. This was followed by the Director, DRMR saying “I would not be able to say anything on yield claims because the variant as so far not been tested according to ICAR protocol. It has just entered our system. Once the trials and studies are over, one will get a clear picture of the actual yield of DMH-11.”

The Alliance for Sustainable Agriculture and others then wrote to the Prime Minister to stop all approvals and trials of GM mustard: “It is with alarming alacrity that the Government of India has violated its own undertaking given to the SC in hearing related to this matter and also acted in contempt of the court’s orders when it got the GM mustard planted in six locations around November 1, 2022.” The group of scientists and activists alleged the government had given “untrue” and “incorrect” information in its affidavit filed before SC. In fact the SC asked the compelling need for GM mustard, to which the government replied that it was the culmination of a long procedure of research.

In December 2022, the Minister for Environment, and the Minister for Science & Technology, both informed Parliament that strengthening of plant breeding programmes, including the use of new genetic technologies such as GE was important for meeting emerging challenges in Indian agriculture, and studies conducted on DMH-11 (the hybrid GM mustard granted environmental okay) had shown 28% more yield than the national check, and 37% more yield in zonal checks, during confined field trials. The government said that extensive studies carried out on toxicity, allergenicity, compositional analyses, field trials and environmental safety of GM mustard lines vs. their non-transgenic comparators had provided evidence that DMH-11 was safe for cultivation, food and feed use. However, ICAR stated that GM mustard may not solve India’s edible oil import problem.

Towards the end of December 2022, the Department of Agriculture Research and Education issued orders barring serving and former officials giving opinions or writing articles on the issue of GM mustard and warned of administrative action against those who flouted the order. Scientists felt that silencing the scientific voice against the “risky and unwanted” GM crops was itself indicative that there was more to hide than reveal and that they did not want any lies to be exposed.

In January 2023 an in-depth critical article questioning GM Mustard stated that in a labour-abundant rural economy like India’s, herbicide tolerant crops upset farming ecosystems. A day later the Coalition for GM-Free India alleged that there had been as many as 15 instances of blatant compromise of the country’s established regulatory regime while permitting the environmental release of GM mustard (DMH0-11) by the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee.

The antibiotic resistance markers and herbicides like Basta, a cousin of glyphostate used in the development of Delhi University’s herbicidal mustard hybrid, are linked to microbial resistance and cancer. Moreover CaMV-35S promoter of viral origin has caused adverse environmental effects and allergies. GM cotton and the herbicide-resistant mustard and maize are engineered by introducing foreign genes that enable plants to produce pesticides & herbicides – synthesised plant toxins are unable to distinguish between harmful pests and beneficial organism like bees and therefore kill both.

Surprisingly in January 2023 the Government informed the Supreme Court that GM Mustard was not developed as herbicide-tolerant (HT). (However, the Bar gene itself confers the herbicide tolerant trait.) The SC said it was more concerned about the risk factors than anything else when it came to conditional approval granted by the Centre for the environmental release of GM mustard. It was then submitted that Canada, US and Australia had allowed the cultivation of GE rapeseed containing the bar, barnase and barstar genes. They added that the environmental releases of GM mustard was granted for limited purposes such as developing new parental lines and hybrids under the supervision of the ICAR. Meanwhile, the SC is hearing separate pleas by activists and NGO Gene-Campaign seeking a moratorium on the release of any GMOs until there is a comprehensive, transparent and rigorous bio-safety protocol in the public domain, conducted by independent expert bodies.

By October 2023 GM mustard’s yield and weight were found to be low. In January 2024 in a Press statement issued by the Coalition for GM-free India said that in the results of trails conducted by the ICAR in 6 locations in 2022-23 (without SC clearance despite a earlier undertaking in Court) the government presented data that shows that the oil yield of non-GM hybrid is on par, or marginally higher than the oil yield of GM HT mustard hybrid DMH-11.

After 2 decades of hearing PILs on the issue of GM crops and policies, the Supreme Court on 23 July 2024 directed the Government of India to develop a National Policy on Genetically Modified (GM) Crops for research, cultivation, trade and commerce through public consultation.

According to Soma Marla, Former Principal Scientist, National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources, although there is enough evidence that GM crops harm the soil, water, environment and human health, policy makers and government continue to push the technology. Imran Siddiqi, Emeritus Scientist, Centre for Cellular & Molecular Biology, felt the new policy must assess whether GM crops truly benefit all farmers or only those with resources and corporations. Whereas Kavitha Kuruganti, Alliance for Sustainable & Holistic Agriculture says that the Farmers’ organisation have written to the GOI demanding a consultative process similar to the one undertaken in 2010 regarding the commercialisation of Bt brinjal; and they are also calling for a biosafety policy, rather than a promotional policy for GM crops, insisting that socio-economic considerations must also be included. After all, the issue of GM has been examined by high level committees in the past, all of which adopted consultative processes.

1996:
First GM seeds were commercially introduced in the US for major field crops.
2001:
Application for GM crop was rejected in India.
2002:
Monsanto obtained the Government of India’s permission for commercial cultivation of non-food Bt cotton crop to control attacks by bollworm pests.
2005:
Although more applications for Bt cotton were cleared, no other GM crop was approved.
Andhra Pradesh reversed the decision to allow Bt cotton seeds marketed by Monsanto Mahyco Biotech (MMB).
2006:
Public Interest Litigation (Writ petition No 260/2005) was filed by activists against GM crops in the Supreme Court of India.
2009:
A transgenic brinjal hybrid ‘created’ by Mahyco was sought to be introduced.
2010:
Shri Jairam Ramesh, the then Environment Minister, stopped the release of Bt brinjal under further notice owing to a lack of consensus among different stakeholders alongside opposition from brinjal-growing states. No objection certificates from states were made mandatory to conduct field trials.
2012:
In the 37th Report, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on agriculture had exposed the gaps in India’s GM policy and highlighted the issues of bio-safety, bio-diversity, sustainability, food and seed sovereignty and livelihoods while asking for an end to all GM field trials in the country.
2013:
Since late 2012, new crop trials were adjourned till further notice after the recommendation of the Supreme Court appointed Technical Expert Committee (TEC) to suspend GM crops for 10 years, until regulatory and monitoring systems could be strengthened. Smt Jayanthi Natarajan, the then Environment Minister, put on hold all trials following the TEC’s suggestions.
2014:
Smt Jayanthi Natarajan’s successor, Shri Veerappa Moily cleared the way for further trials.
The Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) approved field trials for 11 crops, including maize, rice, sorghum, wheat, groundnut, and cotton in March 2014.
21 new varieties of GM crops such as rice, wheat, maize, and cotton were approved for field trials by the NDA government in July 2014.
2016:
The GEAC gave signal to GM mustard for field trials, but the Supreme Court stayed the order and sought public opinion on the same.
2017:
The Standing Committee on Science & Technology, Environment & Forests submitted its report to Parliament on GM crops.

Due to stiff resistance from farmers in Punjab and civil society groups, the GEAC withdrew its approval to the transgenic mustard seed variety – Dhara Mustard Hybrid-11, i.e. DMH-11.
2022:
On 18th October 2022, DMH-11 received permission from the central regulator GEAC for seed production and field testing, i.e. “environmental release”.

BT Cotton Declining Production

At the Cotton Association of India’s AGM a grim scenario of the crops prospects in 2024-25 season starting October was expected with the area under cultivation expected to go down by at least 10% due to falling yields – the lowest since 2008-09.

The Confederation of Indian Textile Industry (CITI) in January 2024 stated “The Technology Mission on Cotton (TMC-I) launched by the Government during 2000-01 played an instrumental role in increasing both the yield and acreage of cotton cultivation... however, after the conclusion of TMC-I and in the lack of proper technological interventions and appropriate seed technology in the cotton sector, India’s cotton production declined.”

The Director of the South Asia Biotechnology Centre, Jodhpur also stated cotton production is passing through a phase of deceleration. The first outbreak of pink bollworm was reported in 2013-14 in Gujarat from where it quickly spread. It is now the biggest threat and damages to the extent of 55% and reduces seed cotton yield to an extent of 35 to 90%.

Non-implementation of refuge strategy by planting of non-BT cotton around BT cotton plot, rather than quickly adopting to Refuge–in-Bag strategy, lack of mandatory requirement for the expression of maximal BT protein in BT cotton hybrids and the approval of large numbers of BT cotton hybrids making it difficult to inspect and maintain quality, were the three reasons which led to the pink bollworm developing the resistance to BT protein. In addition illegally developed BT cotton flooded the market and added to the harm caused to farmers.

Two award-winning films Cotton for my shroud and Candles in the wind focus on India’s once prosperous, self-sufficient farming community now turned into beggars. This is because the government distributed BT cotton seeds which did not work here. In the 1990s nearly 8 million cultivators quit farming and between 1997 and 2010 more than 2 lakh committed suicide. Monsanto seeds kept failing, and the government reintroduced 200 billion rupees worth of the same seeds! Called the Green Revolution and supposed to be great, but all it resulted in was ruin for farmers and unbelievably hard struggles for their widows and families.

Just viewing these films should make the government ban BT crops immediately.

India’s Laws pertaining to GM crops

• The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

• Rules for the Manufacture, Use, Import, Export, and Storage of Hazardous Micro-organisms/Genetically Engineering Organisms or Cells, 1989.

• Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1988 (8th amendment).

• Schedule Y of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

• Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001.

• Biological Diversity Act, 2002.

• Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

• Plant Quarantine Order, 2003.

• GM Policy under Foreign Trade Policy.

59th Report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Agriculture and Global Report by World Bank and FAO assessments

Some of the most important points about GM crops and their effects in India were raised in the above report. The main observations are summarised below:

Research and development on transgenics in agricultural crops should be done only in strict containment and field trials should not be undertaken till the Government puts in place all regulatory, monitoring, oversight, surveillance and other structures.

Regulatory mechanism had missed the 30% increase in toxic alkaloid in BT brinjal and approved it for environmental release but these could have devastating effects on environment and human as well as livestock health.

A through and independent probe must be conducted into the BT brinjal matter from the beginning up to the imposing of moratorium on its commercialisation by a team of eminent and independent scientists.

There should be no compromise even remotely on the human health and environment by the use of antibiotic-resistance marker in GM crops, as there could be a possibility of transfer of antibiotic resistance market genes from GM crops to other organisms. Hence, the Government should formulate appropriate policy in the regard.

Same set of people should not be involved in development of technologies/products and also in assessment, evaluation and approval. Accordingly, the Government should make changes in the composition of regulatory bodies.

It was recommended to evolve a process of examining domestic laws to determine whether domestic rules and procedures already exist that address potential damage as defined in Article 2 of the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol. The Committee desired that purposeful and definitive action be initiated towards adopting and implementing sustainable and environment-friendly practices and technologies in agriculture and allied sectors, which will conserve biodiversity and also ensure safety of human health and livestock health. The Committee also suggested a monitoring mechanism regarding safety of food items imported into the country.

Lastly the Committee also recommended a liability clause or mechanism in the system which could compensate the poor farmers and the consumers in the eventuality of crop loss and harm to biodiversity health, environment, etc and urged the Government to take appropriate action in this regard.

Moreover, a well-known global report initiated by the World Bank and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) that assessed the impacts of past, present and future agricultural knowledge, science and technology on hunger, livelihoods, human health, and sustainable development nails the issue quite succinctly:
“Biotechnology has always been on the cutting edge of change. Change is rapid, the domains involved are numerous, and there is a significant lack of transparent communication among actors. Hence assessment of modern biotechnology is lagging behind development; information can be anecdotal and contradictory, and uncertainty on benefits and harms is unavoidable. There is a wide range of perspectives on the environmental, human health and economic risks and benefits of modern biotechnology; many of these risks are as yet unknown.”