Tags:
Journalism of Courage
That the Supreme Court has cleared field trials of GM crops already approved by the regulator 8212; the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee GEAC 8212; but has also asked the government to follow 8220;stricter procedures8221; and submit scientific data, is a win for neither anti-GM activists nor the government. Activists now have to contend with a legal precedent that refuses to demonise GM crops. But the bigger, and more important, loss of face is for the government. Since GM farming is crucial for India8217;s agricultural future but, for well-known reasons, attracts a lot of campaigners well-schooled in the art of sophisticated publicity, it was incumbent on the part of the government to take the process of field trials and data evaluation outside the scope of successful legal challenges. The GEAC8217;s mandate is precisely to devise a procedure that satisfies the most sceptical of observers. As the court8217;s order makes it clear, it is not the desirability of GM crops that is at stake but the government8217;s handling of what is a complex administrative-scientific process.
There have been allegations that data was not released even after the Central Information Commission had instructed that it be made public. This kind of situation tends to confirm the worst suspicions of activists whose a priori assumptions are negative. It also makes the neutral observer uncomfortable. It is not clear why the government set-up responsible for this hasn8217;t understood that if transparency isn8217;t forthcoming voluntarily in high profile issues there are institutional means to force it on official actors. The excuse can8217;t be that the data comes from private companies8217; field trials. The information, in so far as it concerns proper procedures that precede a policy decision, should be made public on demand.
