GM Mustard verdict by SC: Seed industry pitches for a science-based approach

The seed industry has welcomed the verdict by the two-judge bench on the conditional approval granted by the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) to Delhi University’s Centre for Genetic Manipulation of Crop Plants (CGMCP).

Delivered on Tuesday, the matter is set to be reviewed by a larger bench. Terming it a watershed moment, the industry emphasised that adopting progressive GM technology will significantly advance India’s pursuit of atmanirbarta in oilseeds.

Justice Sanjay Karol upheld the GEAC’s decision as independent, reasoned, and in line with the existing regulations. His ruling has been met with appreciation from the seed industry. Ajai Rana, Chairman of the Federation of Seed Industry of India (FSII) and CEO & MD of Savannah Seeds, commended Justice Karol’s decision, stating, ″We are glad that Hon’ble Justice Karol has supported the working of the regulatory body GEAC and found its working as per rules. The industry has always maintained that we must trust our regulators and support their decisions. GEAC is a scientific body, and their assessments are of high quality.″

On the other hand, Justice B V Nagarathna, part of the two-judge bench, deemed the decision ″vitiated,″ highlighting significant concerns. As a result, the petitions, which have been pending for nearly two decades, will now be presented to a larger bench for further deliberation.

Industry experts emphasise the need for self-sufficiency in oilseeds and increased farmer profitability. Rana asserted, ″GMOs are tested stringently, and India’s regulatory bodies and research institutions adhere to the highest international norms and practices for evaluating safety & efficacy of biotech crops. GM Mustard can ensure ‘atmanirbharta’ in oil seeds, a major focus of the Indian government, and also promote farmer prosperity through increased productivity.″

A critical point of contention for setting aside the GEAC’s permission is the use of foreign data in the application. Critics argue that the GEAC approved the trait without relying on indigenous studies on the effects of GM Mustard in India and its potential environmental ramifications. Industry experts counter that Indian agencies have been integral to all biosafety studies.

Ram Kaundinya, Advisor to FSII, underlined the critical involvement of Indian agencies and institutions in the biosafety study of DMH-11. ″The University of Delhi is part of the regulatory evaluations that are part of the field trials conducted in India. The food safety studies have been done by Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and accredited laboratories. Reputed Indian institutions like CGMPC, University of Delhi, ICMR-NIN, ICAR-DRMR, and CSIR-IMT generated data on molecular characterization, food safety, environmental safety, and detection protocols for the three proteins – Bar, Barnase, and Barstar,″ he explained. ″A 3285-page document containing the observations and results of all the biosafety studies was submitted to GEAC. An expert committee reviewed all the data submitted by the applicant and cleared it. That report is available on the GEAC website for public consultation.″

Both justices highlighted the necessity for a national policy on GMOs and directed the union government to develop such a policy through appropriate consultations with all stakeholders, including states, independent experts, and farmers’ bodies. Dr Rajendra Barwale, Member of FSII and Executive Chairman of Mahyco Pvt Ltd, echoed this sentiment, stating, ″The industry unanimously views this direction as positive. A national policy is needed because the actual implementation of the regulatory process is getting impeded by political decisions and activism. There is an urgent need for a common approach amongst all states. This national policy should be formed in consultation with states and political parties and based on science and a common understanding among them. The policy, when formulated, should be supported by all, ensuring uniformity of approach with respect to its implementation in the country. It will help the industry in making investment decisions in further research and development for getting such cutting-edge technologies for the benefit of farmers and the country.″

Raghavan Sampathkumar, Executive Director, FSII noted the global acceptance of GM Canola cultivated on millions of hectares for the past 25 years, with no reported adverse effects. ″There has not been any reported adverse effect of this cultivation on humans, animals, environment, or honey bees. There is no reason to believe that all the data generated through trials in India have shown anything different. On the other hand, we are importing GM oils and consuming them without any adverse health events being reported,″ he said.

As the issue moves to a larger bench, the industry’s future direction and regulatory landscape remain under close scrutiny, with stakeholders awaiting a comprehensive and unified policy on GMOs.