Sunita Narain: The regulatory hole

DOWN TO EARTH

In this past month, farmer associations in Haryana and Tamil Nadu have located and burnt field trials for the genetically modified Bt rice. In Chhattisgarh, the state government has stopped similar trials happening under its nose. It is all too easy to deride these actions as the handiwork of some misinformed eco-fundamentalists or miscreants out to seek "cheap" publicity. But if critics of such civil action pause and ask what is it that forces people to take such extreme steps, they will invariably find that the blame lies elsewhere.

This happens because our regulatory institutions are compromised, weak and discredited in public eyes. The fact also is that industry systematically undermines these processes. On being caught out, it cries foul.

Take the instance of pesticide regulations, which I know well. A few years ago, we started testing for pesticide residues in our food and water. As we detected toxins and brought it to public attention, the pesticide industry started its blame game. It first accused us of bad science. When we defended our work, the attack shifted to intimidation with a steady bombardment of legal notices (which continue till date). After this too failed, their offensive has become personal. The owner of a leading pesticide company is now circulating dirty cartoons drawn by him on me. Being a woman, they consider me easy game.

The issue for us is different. We have found to our horror that industry is hardly regulated for environmental or food safety in India. Pesticides were registered without the mandatory setting of maximum residue levels or legal limits of what would be allowed in our food. The rest of the world regulates these economic toxins using a trade-off of nutrition verses poison. In other words, it decides first on how much pesticide can be ingested over a lifetime and then carefully stipulates how much is allowed in different items of our diet. We did not even have the concept of the safety threshold in our regulations.

This commonsense regulation of modern toxins requires credible scientific institutions that work in public interest. But institutions designed to monitor pesticide residues in India have been increasingly compromised because of their forced alliances with industry. The pesticide industry provides money for research and trials, sponsors its conferences, and it also gives jobs. Like it or not, it has become the benefactor in this private-public partnership. This market formula creates conflicts of interest when research has to be credible and, more importantly, publicly acceptable.

Regulation of pesticide residues requires state of the art public research, laboratories, inspectors and scientists. When registering a new pesticide in India, we never stop to check if we have the wherewithal to monitor its use, and if whether new equipment (and hence more money) is required. We never consider a mandatory cess on each new registration to pay for its management.

The case of genetically modified (GM) organisms is similar. Some people are ideologically opposed to GM crops. But there are others "" like me "" who want these crops introduced, but with all precaution to ensure our safety. In other words, we want a credible and effective (kicking) public regulatory policy and framework for the use of GM products in the country. But it seems that is too much to ask.

The bottom line is we can't assume that we are rich and powerful enough to use modern substances, but too poor to regulate their use. That would be wrong. No, it would be criminal. And it is.