1.SC steps in to tighten GM crop test norms - Times of India
2.Haven't cottoned on - Indian Express
EXTRACT: In India, the regulatory structure for field trials is strict in theory, but in practice, scandalously lax. (item 1)
GM WATCH COMMENT: These 2 pieces are wonderfully contrasting. The first from the Times of India describes India's regulatory body - the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) - as "a mere rubber stamp", pointing out that it cleared as many as 142 proposals for multi-locational GM field trials in just 4 meetings, until the Supreme Court stepped in to call a halt. And the Times of India describes India's field testing as "scandalously lax."
By contrast, the Indian Express praises India's "fairly rational GM policy" and says it just needs streamlining to speed things upand help it handle efficiently "the flood of applications coming India's way." Most remarkably, it describes India's testing of GM crops as being marked by "abundant caution".
The Express piece is extremely misleading, given the clear evidence of blatant violations of biosafety guidelines during field trials. The GEAC and India's State Governments have admitted that they are not even kept informed by the the likes of Monsanto as to where exactly the GM crop trials are happening!!
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6077
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6309
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6289
---
1.SC steps in to tighten GM crop test norms
Manoj Mitta The Times of India, 5 October 2006 http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/2091187.cms
NEW DELHI: Fresh field trials of genetically modified crops are on hold. The Supreme Court has directed the government that it should not give any fresh approvals to GM crop field trials until further orders.
GM crops is an issue that has cleaved the scientific community. Field trials of GM crops are governed by stringent regulations around the world, including most of Europe where GM food has not passed muster despite immense pressure from biotech giants.
In India, the regulatory structure for field trials is strict in theory, but in practice, scandalously lax. This is what the Supreme Court discovered on September 22 when it issued its order against fresh field trials.
Soon thereafter, agriculture minister Sharad Pawar - a votary of GM foods - also admitted that food safety and environment risks should be assessed on a "strict scientific basis" for GM crops.
GM crops have been mired in controversy for several years across the world despite claims of high yield and reduced dependence on pesticides.
Currently in India, many blame the farmer distress in cotton-growing areas on high-priced GM seeds that failed to deliver on their promise, leaving the farmer badly indebted.
Who allows field tests of GM crops in India? Until May 1, permission was being given by the review committee of genetic manipulation (RCGM) under the department of biotechnology, the very same department that promotes GM technology.
The obvious conflict of interest was highlighted in a PIL filed by activist Aruna Rodrigues.
The apex court went into the issue and discovered that under the 1989 rules framed under the Environment Protection Act, permission for field trials was actually meant to be granted by the genetic engineering approval committee (GEAC) under the environment ministry.
Intervening for the first time on May 1, the Supreme Court ordered that only GEAC could clear field trials. But in the event, GEAC turned out to be a mere rubber stamp.
In its four meetings since the May 1 order, GEAC cleared as many as 142 proposals of multi-locational field trials.
The range of crops under test includes vegetables and food grains: brinjal, maize, mustard, sugar cane, sorghum, rice, tomato, potato, banana, papaya, cauliflower, oilseeds, castor, soyabean, chick-pea and medicinal plants.
Rodrigues went to the court again, this time to draw attention to GEAC's failure to exercise due diligence while clearing proposals for field trials.
---
2.Haven't cottoned on
Indian Express, October 4 2006
http://www.indianexpress.com/story/13950.html
With India poised to become the world's second largest cotton producer, as reported in this newspaper, thanks largely to higher yields from genetically modified cotton, the most important follow-up question to this good news is why are the chances of more breakthroughs being held back by bureaucratic infighting. The department of science and technology and the environment ministry have been battling for months over whose nominee should head the proposed national biotechnology regulatory authority. This body, recommended by the M.S. Swaminathan task force, is to function as a single window for preliminary approval, research evaluation and final clearance, taking care of inter-ministerial wrangles that characterise the current three-stage process. It is surprising there has been no top-of-the-government intervention as yet to sort out this bureaucratic turf battle.
The surprise is greater because India, unlike, say Europe, has a fairly rational GM policy. Of course there have been examples of unnecessary obfuscation by government regulators, which is also one of the reasons Swaminathan advocated a single-window system. But overall, India's GM policy has been a reasonably good mixture of positive attitude to new technology and abundant caution while testing it. That the government has set up a special committee that will evaluate independent assessments of field trials for Bt brinjal - the reason is that Bt brinjal, if cleared, will be India's first GM food crop - is one example of cautious policy. On the other hand, the system of event based clearance - this means once a GM crop from one party has been cleared, other parties planning to employ the same variety need not seek approval - shows policymakers have learnt flexibility.
But this government, which says farming is a high priority, should consider itself warned: its current GM regulation is equipped neither to efficiently handle the flood of applications coming India's way - GM tomato and golden rice, among others - nor to manage the resultant high intensity NGO activism.