GEAC's
Poor Record Of Regulation
By Bhaskar Goswami
20 August, 2007
India Together
Reforms
in India are expected to replace control and licensing with regulations
that will benefit both industry and the people. The report card on the
performance of the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), however,
shows no evidence of this balance. Instead, what we find is an evident
and inherent bias in favour of industry, while farmers and consumers
have been left on the margins.
Set up by the Ministry of
Environment and Forests as an inter-ministerial body, the GEAC is meant
to regulate research, testing and commercial release of genetically
modified (GM) crops, foods and organisms. Considering the controversies
surrounding the acceptance of GM foods and crops, and knowing the worldwide
opposition to GM foods, the GEAC was expected to play a judicious role
that goes beyond commerce. But recommendations and decisions from its
last 79 meetings show that the nodal agency has swept under the carpet
serious concerns about human and animal safety, as well as environmental
contamination. Working in tandem with the biotech industry, the GEAC
is turning India into a dumping ground for untested and risky GM crops
and food.
Bt Cotton, the only commercially
grown GM crop in India, was approved for cultivation in 2002. Since
then, the GEAC has bent the rules to protect the interest of biotech
companies. Beginning with three hybrids of Mahyco-Monsanto in 2002,
it has now approved 135 GM cotton varieties of 16 companies. Despite
calls for caution, many GM food crops like okra, rice, corn and brinjal
are on the GEAC's menu this year.
There are principally three
fronts on which the GEAC has failed.
Enforcing rules for
trials:
Call it incompetence or connivance,
the fact is that the GEAC has been unable to enforce rules and regulations
governing GM crop trials. Under the 1989 Rules of the Environment Protection
Act, the GEAC is the only body which is authorised to permit trials
of GM crops. In 1998, the states governments of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka
protested against illegal Bt cotton trials being carried out by Mahyco-Monsanto.
These trials were permitted by the Department of Biotechnology (DBT),
which is a violation of the 1989 Rules. Instead of disciplining the
DBT, the GEAC declared that these trials are meant for 'experimentation
and research' and therefore the permission is valid!
The regulator has failed
to control the illegal proliferation of Bt Cotton across the country
since 2001. It has itself violated the Environment Protection Act by
allowing trials in states where State Biotechnology Coordination Committees
and District Level Biotechnology Committees have not been formed. The
State governments and farmers are not informed of these trials. In fact,
the GEAC itself is not aware of the locations of all the trials and,
naturally, monitoring is inadequate. No wonder some farmers who were
involved in the field trials of GM food crops even sold the produce
after harvest. Such reports on contamination of the food supply chain
as well as neighbouring fields have poured in from various parts of
the country, but have rarely been discussed in the GEAC meetings
Carrying out biosafety
tests:
Last year, public outcry
over lack of biosafety tests on Bt Brijal led to the formation of an
expert committee to evaluate the biosafety data. Surprisingly, no such
evaluations are being carried out for other food crops that are being
considered for trials in the field. The reasons for this are not difficult
to figure out. Many GEAC members, who are expected to take objective
decisions, are themselves developers of GM crops and members of bodies
sponsored by the biotech industry (see box). This is why the GEAC never
penalises any biotech company for violation of norms and inadequate
biosafety tests.
Meanwhile serious health
impacts are being reported from the field. More than 12,000 sheep were
killed last year in Andhra Pradesh after grazing in Bt Cotton field.
An alarmed Director of the State's Animal Husbandry Department urged
the GEAC to carry out rigorous biosafety tests and also asked farmers
not to graze their animals in Bt cotton fields. Yet the GEAC brushed
aside these concerns.
Biotech developers have argued
that there is no proven cause-and-effect relationship between Bt toxins
and the deaths of these animals; the toxin is intended to affect insects
with alkaline stomachs, not mammals which have acidic stomachs. However,
there is empirical evidence that cellulose-rich livestock feed makes
the stomach alkaline and results in the toxin surviving longer. There
is also some evidence of toxin-induced impacts on neurological systems
of animals.
Prior to this, cotton workers
in Madhya Pradesh had reported allergic reactions to Bt cotton. Bt Cotton
farmers in Punjab have also reported skin allergies among workers engaged
in harvesting. None of these have been investigated by the GEAC.
One-sided inputs for decisions:
Inserting an alien gene into
a plant might pose serious health risks to humans and animals, which
is why rigorous biosafety tests are essential. Unmindful of this, the
GEAC relies on the data produced by the biotech companies instead of
independent research by government agencies. This data is treated as
proprietary information and is neither peer-reviewed not put in the
public domain for scientists to evaluate. When the Indian Council for
Medical Research can make clinical trial data on biomedical and health-related
studies public, why cannot the same yardstick be applied to GM crops
and food? This is nothing but suppression of science and a cover-up
strategy.
Not just biotech companies,
but influential traders of agricultural commodities too are being patronised
by the GEAC. Running the risk of rejection of contaminated rice by Europe,
Basmati exporters lobbied hard and brought in a ban on GM rice trials
in the Basmati belt, but not for the rest of the country where paddy
is cultivated. Despite a ban on import of GM food, import of GM soybean
oil has been going on for years with the knowledge of the government.
Further, despite knowing that testing facilities and protocols for GM
presence have yet to be developed, imports of GM food have been permitted
provided they are labeled. Clearly, trade interests of private companies
scores over safety of farmers' and consumers.
Failure of the regulatory
mechanism has evoked strong reactions from some states. The Agriculture
Ministers of Kerala and Orissa have announced that they will not allow
any GM trials in their states. Farmers' movements have uprooted and
burnt fields of GM rice in Haryana and Tamilnadu for violation of GEAC
norms. Officials from the states of Uttar Pradesh, Chattisgarh, and
West Bengal have written to the Centre pointing out irregularities during
field trials on GM brinjal, okra and rice. Yet the GEAC has ignored
all calls to exercise caution.
While hearing an appeal on
safety of GM products, the Supreme Court, through its order on 8 May
2007, clearly upheld the importance of biosafety. However, the GEAC
during its subsequent meetings has deliberately misinterpreted the decision
and approved fresh field trials. That even the Supreme Court's order
is not considered sacrosanct by the GEAC is a clear indicator of things
to come.
A regulator that does not
adhere to the law of the land and is also unable to protect the interest
of farmers and consumer itself needs to be regulated. There is an urgent
need for an autonomous body, which includes all stakeholders, to regulate
the GEAC. The health and environmental risks associated with GM crops
are too serious to be disregarded.
GEAC
Sponsored By The Biotech
Industry?
Many
GEAC members, who are expected to take objective decisions, are themselves
developers of GM crops and members of bodies sponsored by the biotech
industry. A media advisory from the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture
earlier this year noted many conflicts of interest.
Dr. C D Mayee, co-Chair of
the GEAC and the DBT nominee, is also a Board member of ISAAA an international
network funded by biotech majors such as Monsanto, Bayer and Dupont.
Dr T V Ramanaiah, Ex-Member-Secretary, Review Committee on Genetic Manipulation,
had personally approved hundreds of GM crop field trials that have happened
in India so far. He has quit his post in the DBT and has joined Pioneer
HiBred International as their Biotech Regulatory Affairs Manager.
Dr Deepak Penthal (University
of Delhi), Dr Akhilesh Tyagi (UD-South Campus), Dr B M Khadi (CICR),
Dr P Anand Kumar (National Research Centre of Plant Biotechnology) and
Dr Rakesh Tuli (National Botanical Research Institute) were others identified
as holding (or having held) regulatory roles despite a personal interest
in the development of GM varieties.
Withholding Information
Under the Right to Information
Act, Greenpeace had asked the Department of Biotechnology to release
all data related to biosafety assessment of GM crops. DBT refused, claiming
this is proprietary information. On appeal, the Central Information
Commission directed DBT to release the information, but DBT argued that
given the volume of material involved, it could only be scrutinised
at the MoEF, and that too in the presence of a GEAC representative.
Finally, at the latest hearing at the Supreme Court on August 1, the
government counsel agreed to share the information and said that GEAC
will put all information on its website. That has still not happened,
however.
Bhaskar Goswami is with the New Delhi based Forum for Biotechnology
and Food Security.
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights
Comment
Policy
Digg
it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands
of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page
of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an
vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So,
as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.