Ahead of the presentation of the report of the high-powered Technical Expert Committee (TEC) on genetically modified (GM) crops to the Supreme Court, a war of words seems to have broken between the pro-and anti- GM activists over the composition of the committee and its competence.
The anti-GM lobby alleged that former director-general of the Indian Council of Agriculture Research (ICAR), R S Paroda, who was included in the Committee last year, has a clear case of conflict of interest because he has been part of organisations that not only have representatives of seed companies, but are funded by Monsanto, Mahyco, and others as well.
The pro-GM group, on the other hand, alleged that there are some members in TEC who are well known for their stance against GM crops and could hence have “clouded” views.
They alleged that a TEC member, Imran Siddiqui, is the chief scientist at the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB, Hyderabad), which had Pushpa Bhargava as one of its founding members. Bhargava is a well-known and accomplished votary against GM crops.
Similarly, another TEC member, P S Ramakrishnan, a professor in the school of environmental sciences in Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), has published papers saying that modern agriculture practices have limited value in a developing country.
The activists alleged the anti-GM leanings of yet another TEC member, B Sivakumar, who is the former director of National Institute of Nutrition, Hyderabad, are also well-known. Both P S Ramakrishnan and B Sivakumar did not reply to the mails sent or telephone calls made. Siddiqui accepted that CCMB indeed had Pushpa Bhargava as its founding member.
“I think the anti-GM activists are creating the issue of conflict of interest. A technical expert is one with expertise that accrues only with knowledge and its application through experience. Experience and knowledge cannot be gained by standing aloof from the subject and watching it from the side lines,” said N K Singh, secretary of National Academy of Agricultural Sciences.
He said conflict of interest comes only if one receives any personal benefits for recommending a technology to the farmers or promoting one’s own product for personal gains.
He supported the composition of TEC on the grounds that it was fairly balanced and has representatives from all fields.
“None of the members of the TEC, other than Dr Paroda, has the competence to judge biotech products and has not worked on any other BT product,” alleged T M Manjunath, a member of Biotechnology Awareness.
Paroda was appointed as the sixth member of the TEC last year, following a huge uproar an interim report by the TEC, which had advocated a 10-year moratorium on research, field trials and commercialisation of GM crops in India. He was roped in after the agriculture ministry’s earlier nominee, V L Chopra, declined to be on the panel.
The TEC was appointed by the Supreme Court in relation to a writ petition filed by social activist Aruna Rodrigues and others in 2005 against the ministries of environment and forests, science and technology, and agriculture.
The petition sought moratorium on release of any agri-biotech or GM seeds, unless a protocol of biosafety tests is prepared by the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC). It also sought a ban on import of any seeds, unless certified as GM free and rules to ensure compulsory labeling of GM foods.
In a separate development, the Association of Biotech Led Enterprises-Agriculture Group, a conglomeration of major seed companies in India, urged environment minister Jayanti Natrajan to expedite the process of granting approval for field trials of GM crops ahead of the kharif-sowing season.
“Though GM varieties are continuously tested to ensure safety of food and environment, the final tests have to be conducted with crops grown in fields under natural conditions during normal seasons in each target regions. Such a field-test – called Biosafety Research Level trial - is a protocol established by the Government of India,” the association said.
