GM mustard: With the govt being secretive, a resolution remains elusive

Union environment minister Anil Madhav Dave's death has added a fresh twist to the entire episode

Earlier this month, the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) gave its nod to the commercial release of genetically modified (GM) mustard.

In its usual discreet manner, the announcement was made unofficially, though within a few minutes the news was all over the place. Till date, there hasn’t been any formal statement from either GEAC or the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change on the approval.

What has been placed in the public domain (it was later withdrawn to be reissued after a few days) is a bunch of FAQs on GM mustard, explaining the product, tests, unfounded safety concerns et al. 

The exercise still leaves a lot of unanswered questions which the government needs to clarify.

Just like any GM brinjal, India’s first GM food crop, mustard, too has been a subject of intense political debate in the country with both pro- and anti-GM activists placing their claims and counterclaims vigorously.

The anti-GM crop activists allege that GEAC cleared GM mustard without proper safety tests. More importantly, they question the output-increase claims made by the main applicant, says Deepak Pental, head of Centre for Genetic Manipulation of Crop Plants, University of Delhi. 

Graph

Dhara Mustard Hybrid (DMH)-11, the variety approved by GEAC, claims to have a per hectare yield which is 20-30 per cent higher than existing varieties.

However, activists argue that the rise is in relation to old varieties and not when compared to improved hybrids. Noted food policy analyst Devender Sharma, in an article published by Business Standard, said that it has been conclusively shown that there already exist four mustard varieties with higher productivity. 

Three of the varieties are in the same DMH series and, in fact, DMH-4, which is a traditional variety, provides 14.7 per cent higher yield than even GM mustard. 

Two more varieties, produced by Pioneer and Advanta, also give higher or almost equal yield than the variety. "I, therefore, don’t understand how does India plan to cut down on edible oil imports by cultivating a low-yielding GM mustard variety?” Sharma asked.

Pental, in an interview to Mint, said that the reason why DMH-11 was used as against other existing varieties was that using them would not have allowed production of very pure hybrids in large quantities. 

Pental claims that using DMH-11 gives the option of having a stable system of seed production which can be exploited in the future to produce varieties that give much higher yields. "Once the technology is in place, you can use better parent lines to get higher yields. This is just the beginning." 

The second argument on secrecy and inadequate safety tests is also open to interpretation.

Agriculture is a sensitive political issue. It will be interesting to see if the BJP-led government has the courage to take GM mustard to its commercial launch. The Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh, BJP’s ideological parent, too has been opposed to any GM crop. 

Its affiliate, the Swadeshi Jagran Manch (SJM), has joined hands with other civil society groups to oppose the commercial release of GM mustard and has repeatedly warned the government against going ahead with any approval. 

The pro-GM mustard groups argue that the variety approved by GEAC is as indigenous as it could be and that it should not be seen as a ‘multinational conspiracy’ to monopolise India’s food market. 

NITI Aayog Vice-chairman Arvind Panagariya recently said that when DMH-11 has been approved by the Indian Patents Office, there should not be any question regarding its origin.

However, SJM, along with noted environmentalists, claims that the gene used in DMH-11 is patented under the name of US multinational Bayer. "We would like to bring it to your kind notice that in 2002, Proagro Seed Company (Bayer's subsidiary), applied for commercial approval for similar construct," SJM said in a letter addressed to Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Amid all the debate, the untimely death of Union environment minister Anil Madhav Dave has added a fresh twist to the entire episode. Dave, who was known for his stance on many environmental issues, was to be the final signing authority on GM mustard after GEAC gave its approval.

Activist Vandana Shiva says that Dave had studied the issue enough to know that this was rushing into the wrong place. "He was obviously not ready to sign the proposal," Shiva claims.

Dave’s replacement is Science and Technology Minister Harshvardhan, under whose administration the department of biotechnology (DBT) functioned. 

DBT has been one of the main financiers of the GM mustard project of Pental, according to the FAQs published by the ministry of environment and forests. 

This has raised questions over conflict of interest, with many claiming that a person who will oversee the clearance of GM mustard shouldn’t also head an entity that financed the project.

Harshvardhan chose to keep his cards close to the chest and in a recent interaction with the media said that he hasn’t gone through the files related to the issue as he took charge only this Monday.

Within the government too, GM mustard hasn’t found unequivocal support. Food Processing Minister Harsimrat Kaur Badal has opposed the clearance, while agriculture minister Radha Mohan Singh says that his mandate is to promote any crop that has been notified by the ministry of environment. 

BJP-ruled Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan have categorically denied any attempt to test GM mustard in their own states. These two are the main mustard growing states of the country. 

So far, the key takeaways from the entire GM Mustard episode have been the following: while the government continues to remain secretive about the clearances and procedures followed, there are divergent views on GM mustard and a clear resolution of the dispute looks unlikely.