BackIndian biotech’s tough regulatory encounter
Anti-GM crop activists are doing great harm to India's food security
Premium
Biotechnology’s tryst with Indian agriculture has been a tumultuous affair so far but the current crisis appears to be its darkest phase. The latest salvo came last week from the environment ministry, which overruled the decision of the genetic engineering approval committee (GEAC), India’s apex biotech authority, to allow field trials of genetically modified (GM) crops. This followed a sustained campaign by a small band of anti-GM activists, who have deemed GM crops unsafe without even a shred of supporting evidence.
The ministry’s decision highlights the extraordinary influence of anti-GM activists on national policies. It also underscores the limited powers of GEAC, and the urgent need for an independent and credible biotech regulator in the country. The Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) Bill, currently pending in Parliament, promises to set up just such a body. Sadly, the Bill faces stiff opposition from the same set of anti-GM activists, who are leading a campaign to stall it.
If recent history is any guide, the activists may well succeed in their ambition of putting the BRAI Bill on the back burner. An August report by the parliamentary standing committee on agriculture slamming GM crops relied largely on testimonies by such activists and ignored reams of evidence attesting to the safety and efficacy of GM crops. Earlier in 2010, Jairam Ramesh, the environment minister at that time put a moratorium on GM brinjal based on testimonies provided by anti-GM non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
Caught in the crossfire between the global organic and biotech lobbies, Indian policymakers have been increasingly tilting towards the pro-organic and anti-GM activist set in the past few years. The growing clout of these activists threatens to turn the technological clock back on agriculture, and deny India a key tool to raise agri-productivity and rural incomes.
Nearly a decade back, GM cotton became the first and only crop to be cultivated in the country. Since then, India has turned from a net importer into one of the biggest cotton exporters in the world. Not only did it help drive up yields and farm incomes, GM cotton also has had a safe journey so far. This has not stopped some anti-GM activists from spinning yarns about cattle dying after ingesting GM cotton leaves. Research by Cornell University political scientist Ronald Herring shows that GM myths propagated by well-networked activists tend to persist long after they have been debunked, and have far more influence among politicians globally than peer-reviewed academic research.
In India’s case, the biotech mess has been exacerbated because of the absence of a credible regulatory regime. The genesis of the problem lies in the very nature of GEAC. Originally intended to be a technically competent body to deal with issues of bio-safety, it was turned into another bureaucratic committee. Its credibility was undermined further when issues relating to conflict of interest were brushed under the carpet. GEAC’s committee-like structure and its acceptance of trial results furnished by technology companies put a bigger question mark on its effectiveness as a watchdog.
The weaknesses of our biotech establishment and regulatory institutions made them vulnerable to attacks from sundry NGOs. The government’s response was worse than the problem though. Instead of introducing regulatory reforms, Ramesh, as the environment minister, set the unique precedent of settling questions of science through public hearings.
The absence of a long-term vision on agricultural technology lies at the root of India’s incoherent approach to biotech regulations so far. Indian politicians have failed to grasp the crying need for technological fixes to boost farm output and make them resistant to the vagaries of weather. Conventional breeding techniques can provide some, but not all solutions to the needs of our farmers. Rather than blindly opposing GM technology, we must actively encourage all agricultural innovations. Simultaneously, India must move to a regime of rigorous and independently conducted trials to settle questions of safety. There will always be those philosophically opposed to any new technology but public policies can’t be held ransom to their whims. Once a technology is approved as safe by a credible scientific authority, there should not be further roadblocks either by politicians or courts.
The BRAI Bill may require amendments to bring in greater transparency in its functioning, and to ensure greater independence from the government of the day. With such changes, the Bill can help create a tough biotech regulator. Further delays in setting up a regulator will be costly. But will politicians eschew populism for pragmatism this time?
Should a nascent industry be subjected to harsh regulatory requirements? Tell us at views@livemint.com
Unlock a world of Benefits! From insightful newsletters to real-time stock tracking, breaking news and a personalized newsfeed – it's all here, just a click away! Login Now!
