JAIRammed

Thats changed now,though. Last month Beijing announced a major plan to industrialise GM farming. Bt cotton is already grown widely in China,like in India,and Chinas immediate plans now include rice,maize,soya,rapeseed. These are food crops,like brinjal. But India,via Jairam Ramesh,has put Bt brinjal on indefinite hold. All the more reason therefore the ministers arguments should be subjected to careful scrutiny.

It will be useful to remember that the day Ramesh took charge as environment minister last year,when Bt brinjal was under the assessment of the GEAC,he had said the Bt brinjal case was different from Bt cotton because the former is a food crop. But everything the minister did differently isnt explained by this difference. The following questions and answers make that clear.

GEAC is authorised to clear GM use. What was Rameshs role?

GEAC works under the Ministry of Environment and Forests. So,the minister is the ultimate boss. The question is how the minister defines his/ her role. When GEAC cleared Bt cotton,the ministry accepted its decision because as a regulatory body with around 30 leading experts from a variety of backgrounds,and a body that was reformed under Supreme Court guidelines,its decision was taken as credible. Ramesh decided to extend the process after getting GEACs recommendation.

Ramesh took public hearings on Bt brinjal. Whats wrong with that in a democracy?

Public hearings sound wonderful. But can complex questions of science be decided by ministers attending town hall-style meetings in some cities? When GEACs efficacy was questioned by activists and the Supreme Court intervened to reform the body after a PIL,the solution was to give GEAC more expert,independent observers. Two were appointed by the court. The GEAC that reports to Ramesh is this reformed GEAC. But the minister nonetheless decided to hold public hearings. The problem is even if the purpose is simply to gauge public mood,one can get a wrong reading because well-organised activists challenging official policy attend these meetings in strength and public voice at these gatherings is really the voice of one side in the debate. Several scientists have complained that they could not speak at these meetings because they were out-shouted by those in favour of outright rejection of GM crops.

What other reasons does Ramesh cite for putting the Bt brinjal decision on hold?

Lack of scientific consensus.

Opposition from state governments.

No other country allows GM vegetables.

There is no over-riding urgency to introduce Bt brinjal.

How valid are these arguments?

Not very. Yes,theres no consensus among scientists. But that will probably always be the case for GM farming. Theres no consensus among economists on many areas of economic policy changes. But economic policy changes nonetheless. Not getting all experts on your side is not a reason public policy gets put on hold. Same for state governments. Remember,they opposed VAT,some of them oppose how the goods and services tax should be framed. But the Centre hasnt given up on GST. The finance ministry continues to make its stand clear.

Indeed,in GM the decision is easier because economic policy cant really have a body like GEAC,which can look at field trial data and take a call. Note that only one GEAC member,P M Bhargava,dissented from the Bt brinjal decision. What Ramesh is effectively arguing is that the countrys Supreme Court-blessed top government and expert authority for GM decisions doesnt count for much. The other reasons make even less sense. GM food crops are allowed in the US,China,Brazil. If Bt brinjal is the first vegetable among food crops to have GM techniques applied to it,that by itself is cannot be a reason for putting it on hold. One can argue more convincingly that here was Indias chance to be a pioneer. As for the no-urgency argument,a good,safe scientific advance with clear benefits ned not wait because theres no urgency. Plus,remember,Indias desperately low farm productivity does form some sort of urgency.

But what about the argument that Bt brinjal research is suspect because it has been a

private enterprise and public safety requires more public sector involvement?

Bt brinjal has been developed by Mahyco,a private company in which global seed major Monsanto has a 26 per cent stake. But two government agriculture universities the University of Agricultural Sciences,Dharwad and the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University TNAU,Coimbatore are active collaborators in the project. Plus,nine other publicly-funded institutions all under the Indian Council for Agricultural Research participated in the field trials of Bt brinjal. The toxicology tests were carried out in four institutions,all of which were publicly-funded. So there was heavy involvement of publicly-funded institutions in the development of Bt brinjal. See box for public sector involvement. Also,GEAC,the ultimate clearing authority,is a government body.

What about the larger point the minister makes,that research into new seeds should be largely a public funded enterprise?

To begin with,its strange that in one area of science,the government should suddenly develop fears about private sector involvement,when public-private cooperation is the ruling mantra. But more than that,the minister is wishing to turn history back. The first big change in farm technology in post-war era,the Green Revolution,did happen largely through public funding. The best

example of this is the Consultative Group on

International Agriculture Research CGIAR that was set up in the 1960s to spread the use and development of better farm technology. CGIAR was and is a global public sector body. And it was one of the stars of the Green Revolution. But things have changed.

First,the intellectual property rights regime changed and applied to plant science much more rigorously. Second,gene technology became important in farm sciences. Third,gene technology research is very expensive. Fourth,global farm trade in both produce and inputs became much bigger than in the 1960s/70s.

All these factors mean that private sector big companies with deep research pockets were both incentivised to get into GM technology and they emerged as the most capable delivery agents in terms of viable research. So,if a country wants access to first rate farm science,it should involve the big private sector. The research budget of the worlds biggest plant science companies are roughly ten times that of CGIAR,the global public sector body for farm technology. This math cannot be wished away. And no sensible government does wish it away.

Of course,theres the question of regulation,and public-private cooperation. But both are already present in India. Wanting Indias public sector to be the sole or the main driver of GM research is a bit of a fantasy. Unless of course we are prepared to commit the amount of resources China has. China can boast of original public sector GM research. But then again,China is very clear about GM. Its going ahead. India,it seems after the Bt brinjal decision,is not.

So,how can we have some clarity about the future?

The minister has to do three things. First,he has to explain what he means by independent studies. The Bt brinjal studies had strong involvement,as we noted,of government scientists and was cleared by a government regulator. If that isnt independent,what is? What is so wrong and what should be fixed thats what many scientists are wondering. The minister must also specify how long it will take before he is sure of the health impact of Bt brinjal. The open-endedness of his long term assessment is extremely problematic. Third,the minister has to clarify whether he intends to stick to the largely public sector-driven GM research promise. Indias GM future cant be guided by an unworkable approach.

The GM science

What is a GM crop? How is it different from conventional hybrid crops?

As the name suggests,a genetically modified crop is produced by bringing about a change in the genetic structure of the plant. It is generally done by introducing an outside gene,sourced from other plants or organisms,to develop some special characteristic in the crop. In conventional hybridisation,two or more varieties of the same crop are cross-bred,through cross-pollination or some other method,to develop a hybrid variety with some desired characteristic.

What are Bt crops like Bt cotton or Bt brinjal?

Bt crops are genetically-modified after inserting a particular gene Cry1Ac from the soil bacterium,Bacillus thuringiensis Bt,into a plant cell. Bacillus thuringiensis is a naturally occurring bacteria that produces a toxin poisonous to certain types of insects. In the case of cotton,the Cry1Ac gene provides resistance from bollworm,cottons most persistent pest. In case of brinjal,it provides resistance from fruit and shoot borer pests. Thus Bt cotton and Bt brinjal use less pesticides,which otherwise is a major input cost for the farmers.

What has been the experience with Bt cotton?

Bt cotton was the first GM crop approved by the government for commercial cultivation in India. From the initial three varieties of Bt cotton developed in 2002,farmers in the country now have more than 200 Bt cotton hybrids to choose from. Since the introduction of Bt cotton,the average productivity of cotton has risen from 191 kg per hectare in 2002-03 to an average of 466 kg per hectare in 2007-08 with Gujarat showing a productivity of 625 kg per hectare. Almost 80 per cent of the cotton area is now under Bt cotton,indicating its popularity among the farmers. India has already overtaken the US as the second largest producer of cotton in the world,next only to China.

What is the opposition to the Bt technology?

Sceptics claim that Bt has not had the desired impact in rain-fed areas of Central India. They claim that Bt crops are more resource-intensive in terms of irrigation and fertilisers,which makes them a bad choice for farmers in rain-fed areas,particularly in time of deficient rainfall. Concerns have also been raised over their supposed adverse impact on human health.

How were these concerns met before Jairam Rameshs decision?

The clearance to any GM crop comes after a long-drawn multi-stage process involving the laboratory development,containment facility development,greenhouse trials,restricted field tests,open field tests,multiple field testing and largescale field trials,in that order. Bio-safety and agronomic data from each of these stages was closely scrutinised by the government regulator,Genetic Engineering Approval Committee GEAC.

Where the rest of the world stands

Argentina,the US and Canada produce 90 per cent of the worlds transgenic crops. Japan,Australia and New Zealand have introduced mandatory labelling for all food containing genetically modified

organisms.

US: Farmers have adopted genetically engineered crops widely since their introduction in 1996. Soybeans and cotton genetically engineered with herbicide-tolerant traits have been the most widely and rapidly adopted GE crops in the US,followed by insect-resistant cotton and corn. The US holds almost three-fourths of the total area devoted to GM crops. The Food and Drug Administration does not distinguish between food produced from GM crops and food produced from crops developed by other technologies.

Europe: There is virtually no market for GM food in Europe as consumers and farmers have overwhelmingly rejected them. EU labelling and traceability regulations also give consumers better information to decide. The EU requires labelling of all foodstuff,additives and flavours containing 1 per cent or more genetically modified material. Individual countries within the EU have added further requirements.

China: Granted safety certificates to three GM food crops two strains of GM rice and one of GM maize for small-scale field trials last August. This is the first time that China has granted safety certificates to staple food crops.

Latin America: GM soybean,the worlds most widely-planted GM crop,is grown widely in Latin America,primarily for export,with Brazil and Argentina being the main producers. GM corn is also widely cultivated.

Pakistan: Bt cotton cultivation will officially be launched from the kharif season this year.

Australia: Has mandatory labelling for GM food. Has approved GM cotton,carnations and canola for commercial cultivation. GM soy,cotton,corn and potato are imported and are approved for consumption.

pallavi singh