GM-free India alleges regulatory lapses in nod granted to DMH-11 mustard

Claims 15 instances of compromise of country's established regulatory regime in report released just days before Supreme Court again hears matter on GM crops

The Coalition for GM-Free India alleged on Friday that there have been as many as 15 instances of blatant compromise of the country’s established regulatory regime while permitting the ‘environmental release’ of GM mustard (DMH-11) by the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC).

“The Approval demonstrates the total failure of India’s limited biosafety regulations and showcases serious deficiencies in the regulatory regime. Public health, environmental safety and socio-economic considerations have been seriously endangered by the regulators and the Government of India," Kavitha Kuruganti of the Coalition said in a press conference while releasing the report.

The report has been released barely days before the Supreme Court hears the case on GM crops once again.

Citing instances where the GEAC approval has violated the established regulatory regime, the Coalition said there was no health expert in the panel that approved GM mustard. Despite that, GM mustard was cleared for health and safety.

That apart, some people in the GEAC have been developers of other lines of GM mustard and strong advocates of GM crops.

“This is clearly the umpire being the player as well,” Kavitha said.

The Coalition also alleged that in the case of GM mustard, the crop developer himself had evolved the protocols and had done the tests based on which the approvals were granted. GM mustard has not been tested as an HT (herbicide-tolerant) crop as India’s regulatory regime has no provision for testing such crops.

“Even the limited statutory regulatory guidelines and protocols on Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA) and food safety testing were not complied with,” the Coalition alleged.

Sridhar Radhakrishnan, Co-Convener of the Coalition, added: “Our report presents 15 illustrations of serious regulatory violations and infirmities, to show that what the Union of India is claiming about the robustness of our regulatory regime is a set of falsehoods yet again. These are only illustrations. These are to show how unreliable the regulators are, when the regulatory regime is actually supposed to protect ordinary citizens and their environment from risks of modern biotechnology.”

“We show how even without a formal approval letter being issued, ICAR jumped into the picture on behalf of a third party applicant, to ensure that the seeds are planted in great haste, and a fait accompli delivered. Delivering the fait accompli itself is a violation of a court undertaking by the Union of India,” Sridhar said.