The promise and performance of genetically modified crops in
agriculture is once again under the spotlight, with the sanction given by the
Genetic Engineering Approval Committee for confined field trials of several food
crops. In its last days, the UPA government decided to end the moratorium on
trial cultivation of these engineered varieties, and to allow experiments aimed
at generating biosafety data. The GEAC has now taken further steps to allow
field trials of rice, brinjal, mustard, chickpea and cotton, and import of GM
soyabean oil. Clearly, there can be no credible argument against scientific
experiments in agriculture that advance the goal of developing plant varieties
that can withstand drought, resist pests and raise yields to feed the growing
world population. But this should be done through a transparent regulatory
process that is free of ethical conflicts. Proponents of GM crops funding
research in agricultural universities represents one such conflict. To aid
transparency, research findings should be made available in the public domain
for independent study. But India has taken only halting steps towards
establishing a strong regulatory system; the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority
of India Bill, 2013, which provided for multi-level scientific assessments and
an appellate tribunal, has lapsed.
While the Central government has not permitted the commercial
cultivation of Bt brinjal in India, the recent case of neighbouring Bangladesh
shows that regulatory mechanisms must be put in place before such crops are
grown, whether for research or for the market — and they must be functional.
Although the licence to produce the crop in Bangladesh required that the GM
variety be isolated from indigenous ones to prevent genetic contamination, the
condition was not followed. Field trials in India, in which the State
governments have a say, must ensure that there are sufficient safeguards against
such violations. If GM food is allowed to be sold to consumers, they must have
the right to know what they are buying, and labelling should be made mandatory.
Here again, the Bangladesh experience shows that such a condition may be
difficult to enforce. There is no consensus on the performance of GM crops and
the results have been mixed. They have had some beneficial impact on tillage
practices and in terms of curbing the use of insecticides, but as the Union of
Concerned Scientists in the U.S. points out, they have created monocultures and
may be affecting birds and bees. All this underscores the need for a cautious
approach — one that fosters scientific inquiry, allows for scrutiny and is
underpinned by regulation. Enacting a comprehensive law that covers all aspects
of GM crops should be a priority
கருத்துகள் இல்லை:
கருத்துரையிடுக