NEW DELHI, NOVEMBER 5: After three years of Bt cotton, the first genetically modified crop in India, a whole range of crops are being tested in contained fields. As the numbers grow - there are 85 trial sites already in the country (see map) - activists and apex regulators are cautioning that the regulatory mechanism needs to run deep, down to the village-level, to keep pace with new trial sites.

The Bharatiya Kisan Union (BKU), whose activists torched a Bt rice trial field in Karnal last week, today alleged that seeds had been left unattended after harvesting at a Bt rice trial field in Gorakhpur and grains removed for storage in a rented room in a village. The field, the BKU claimed, was leased to Mahyco by an absentee landowner.

To rule out any possibility of contamination, the rules are clear: All materials, including seed of rice from trapper rows, should be fully accounted for. The harvested crop from border rows and leftover plant from the entire experimental plot shall be destroyed after completion of the experiment.

So far, India is yet to approve commercial use of genetically modified food crop. These crops are under multi-location field trials. Based on the data, regulators will give permission for large-scale trials before commercialisation.

After the Karnal incident, Greenpeace said it had learnt from local functionaries, including the director of agriculture in the district, that they had no knowledge about these trials.

These two incidents are not going to help the government when the Supreme Court meets later this month to hear the PIL filed by Aruna Rodrigues. The court has already stopped new trials of genetically modified crops until further orders. The government recently submitted an affidavit, asking that the ban be lifted since, it maintained, that the regulatory mechanism at the national and state level was capable to deal with the trials.

But in the minutes of the meetings of the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), the apex regulatory body for GMOs, there is an admission that a gap in the regulatory system needs to be addressed. It has to be decentralized further and state governments need to get actively involved in monitoring these sites.

"The information from the State department does not percolate to the district level and field level functionaries in proper time. The chairman GEAC opined that this gap needs to be addressed on a priority basis and informed the Committee that the matter may be taken up with the respective State governments".

The Committee went a step ahead and said that large-scale field trials should be conducted with the full knowledge and involvement of Gram Sabha, District Magistrate and Block Development Officer. The issue of technical support to the Gram Sabha by state agriculture universities was also discussed.

Till last year, the Monitoring and Evaluation Committee (MEC) under the Department of Biotechnology was a central body.

"It is physically impossible for this body to go and visit each field in the village. It was decided to involve the state agriculture universities. We have been holding capacity building workshops with them," said K K Tripathi, member of the Review Committee on Genetic Modified organisms (RCGM) that gives permission for these trials.

Apart from the concerns raised by anti-GM activists, the most immediate issue is the fear expressed by foodgrain exporters. Indian crops, especially Basmati rice, is sold at a premium in EU as India is "GM free".

"It is important that the trials are kept in abeyance till the regulatory mechanism is put in place," said R S Seshadri of Ricetech. Rice exporters did not want a situation like the one where EU banned all rice trade with the US after stocks were contaminated to the extent of 0.6 per cent.

With growing numbers, the role of state governments is becoming more crucial - the State Biotechnology Coordination Committee, headed by the chief secretary and with nine other members, is one of the several layers of regulatory apparatus to periodically review the safety and control measures. In most states, this machinery is not operational even if it exists on paper. A permission for trials by the RCGM comes with a whole list of dos and don'ts that a company is supposed to abide with, including the size of the fields, the physical barriers and the way to dispose the seeds. All clearances of crops entail that the company provide details of locations within 30 days of the issue of clearance. Plus, they have to inform respective village panchayat officials. Regulators maintain that this is still a "learning process and the Indian regulation is one of the strictest in the world".

Field trials for genetically modified crops

*Tomato: New Delhi, Maharashtra (Mumbai, Pune), TN, Karnataka (4)

*Cabbage: Delhi,UP (2), Haryana, Punjab, Rajasthan

*Cauliflower: Delhi (2),UP (2), Haryana (2), Punjab, Rajasthan

*Corn: Maharashtra (Rahuri), Tamil Nadu, Bihar, Punjab, Rajasthan, MP, UP, Haryana, Karnataka (Dharwad)

*Brinjal: TN (2), Maharashtra, Karnataka, Haryana (2), UP (2), Rajasthan (2), Punjab, Delhi

*Okra: Maharashtra, Gujarat, AP, West Bengal, TN, Haryana, Karnataka, Rajasthan, Bihar

*Mustard: Delhi (2), Rajasthan (3), UP (2), Uttaranchal, MP, Haryana, Gujarat

*Rice: Delhi, AP, Karnataka, Gujarat, UP (2), Maharashtra (2), Chhattisgarh, Tamil Nadu, Haryana, West Bengal

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.