Does it matter if the gene introduced in Bt brinjal varies from the natural brinjal by 70 amino acids rather than by one? What if the regulators in the country fail to detect this and rubber stamp a genetically-engineered vegetable on the basis of the premise submitted by the company that produced it — Mahyco in this case?
The after-effects of the altered variety would consequently escape the attention of the regulators and the consumers would brave the brunt. A study conducted by an international research institute and commissioned by activist Aruna Rodrigues has said Bt brinjal was approved by the regulators on the basis of a wrong premise. The regulator Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) of the Ministry of Environment was misled or chose to be so, says Rodrigues.
Fortunately, for consumers and to the chagrin of the UPA government, the then Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh chose to put a moratorium on Bt brinjal till such time as research proved its safety for consumer.
Now to the study that calls for a review of the regulation mechanism of biologically-engineered food produce in India: Dr Jack A Heinemann, professor of genetics and molecular biology, Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety, University of Canterbury in New Zealand, did a molecular analysis of the Bt gene in response to a request by Rodrigues to look at the evaluation conducted by the GEAC.
Rodrigues is the chief petitioner in a PIL on GM crops in the Supreme Court filed in 2005.
Bt Brinjal has been developed with a pesticidal crystal protein Cry1Ac to give resistance against lepidopteron insects, in particular the brinjal fruit and shoot borer.
The problem comes in the mismatch between the claims of the developer and the failure of the regulators to verify them.
Cry1Ac protein is not derived from nature but made from a series of in vitro modifications. The first 40 per cent of the amino acids found in Cry1Ac2 were replaced with 466 amino acids from Cry1Ab, another insecticidal protein. The developer has claimed that the fusion construct is 99.4 per cent identical in amino acid order to the natural Cry1Ac protein. However, when Heinemann constructed the fusion, he found that it was maximum of 94 per cent identical to Cry1Ac and only 95 per cent identical to Cry1Ab. Based on these matches, it is also not clear why the developer has historically called their fusion construct after Cy1Ac rather than Cry1Ab, wonders the scientist. At 99.4 per cent identity, he says there would be approximately seven amino acid differences between the fusion and the natural Cry1Ac as described by Monsanto. At 94 per cent identity there could be up to 70 different amino acids, he says. According to him, changes of a single amino acid can significantly alter the characteristics of proteins. And one of them is immunogenicity.
Says Rodrigues: It exposes the lapses on the part of our regulators. We don’t have any Bt expert in this country and the study underlines the need for independent studies before clearing a GM crop.
In a letter to Jairam Ramesh recently, she cites the study and blames what she calls regulatory lapses “to the huge conflict of interest that exists and, therefore, the alarming degree of ‘interest’ there is to push for GM crops in Indian agriculture and Monsanto in particular”. Gyanendra Shukla, director, Monsanto, says the study will be looked into while Mahyco officials have chosen not to comment.
Meanwhile, what the study underlines is something larger than Bt brinjal. It is about the need to have an independent regulator guided only by scientific evidence and not by anything else, as Heinemann says.
