[ad_1]
India’s torturous saga on the fate of genetically modified food crop made another pit stop last week with a two-judge Bench, of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Sanjay Karol of the Supreme Court of India, delivering a split verdict on the question of allowing genetically modified (GM) mustard in farmer fields. As of today, the only GM seed permissible in India is cotton. The gain in cotton yield had prompted agricultural institutions, private and public, to develop GM seeds in food crops such as rice, wheat, tomato, brinjal and mustard though none has been released. These issues underpin the story of DMH-11, or Dhara Mustard Hybrid-11, that was developed under a publicly funded project at the Delhi University’s biotechnology department. The genes used in the plant make the crop suitable and lucrative to private seed companies for making newer hybrid varieties. For crops to be approved under India’s agricultural system, they must be sown over three seasons in different agro-climatic zones and prove themselves to be consistently better than their existing comparators. Trials conducted over three years by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research suggest that DMH-11 passed these metrics. This led the GEAC, the scientific advisory body led by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, to approve DMH-11 in October 2022, subject to certain tests. On the other hand, environmentalist groups have said that the DMH-11 is a ‘herbicide tolerant’ crop. It is genetically coded in a way that effectively forces farmers to use certain kinds of pesticide, with destructive environmental consequences; the allegations are that the developers were not transparent with this information. These findings, and the GEAC approval, have been contested in the Court by Aruna Rodrigues and the organisation, Gene Campaign.
The judges disagreed among themselves whether the GEAC was correct. Justice Nagarathna said that the GEAC had violated the ‘precautionary principle’, under which any new organism or modifying technology should, by default, be caged in unless its consequences are deliberated upon. Justice Karol, however, appeared to be satisfied by the process. Therefore, the case passes on to a larger Bench led by the Chief Justice of India. However, the most significant decision was a Court order to the Centre to evolve a policy on GM crops. The dispute over GM crops is fundamentally ideological and less on the traditional agricultural yardsticks of yield and farm economics. This is amplified by India’s agricultural history where a panacea from yesteryears, hybrid seeds and synthetic fertilizer, while improving yields and productivity, have unleashed environmental harm. In their decisions, the Court and the government must remember that the good ought not to be seen as the enemy of the perfect.
[ad_2]
Contested harvest: On India and genetically modified food crop
