EXTRACT: ...then Union Minister for Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh.. [declared] an indefinite moratorium on the commercialisation process of Bt Brinjal in 2010. But the Union Government and the biotech companies have found a way to circumvent such debacles and hence have proposed the BRAI Bill where the propagator becomes the regulator, thereby creating a scandalous cycle of corruption that jeopardises the health of the citizens, our agriculture and our environment.
–-
–-
Beware the biotech Bill
Avik Roy
Daily Pioneer, 5 March
http://www.dailypioneer.com/columnists/item/51183-beware-the-biotech-bill.html

*The Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India Bill threatens to side-step the legal framework available to the people to ensure transparent conduct of business

Environmental activists are bracing for a confrontation with the  Government over the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India Bill, which is likely to come up before Parliament during the Budget Session.

The controversial BRAI Bill has been under scrutiny of various experts, as there has been widespread opposition to the Bill even when it was due to be tabled in the Monsoon Session of Parliament last year. There has been opposition from the National Campaign for People's Right to Information towards this Bill as it even overrides the Right to Information Act (2005) and bypasses the citizens' right to know and participate. The Bill has also been opposed by some MPs in the Lok Sabha, and they are likely to ramp up their opposition this time around.

India has already witnessed a major public agitation on plans to commercialise the first genetically modified food crop, Bt Brinjal. The public pressure finally led then Union Minister for Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh to declare an indefinite moratorium on the commercialisation process of Bt Brinjal in 2010. But the Union Government and the biotech companies have found a way to circumvent such debacles and hence have proposed the BRAI Bill where the propagator becomes the regulator, thereby creating a scandalous cycle of corruption that jeopardises the health of the citizens, our agriculture and our environment.

After the moratorium on Bt Brinjal last year, the biotechnology industry is using extensive funds for ceaseless lobbying: Holding conferences through industry associations, etc. It is unfortunate that, when it is getting clearer and clearer by the day that GM crops rarely bring benefits to the farming community in our country and have the potential to harm our health and environment, the Union Government is going ahead with plans to lower the bar for GM crops’ approval through laws like BRAI. This shows the blatant nexus between multinational seed companies who are pushing their GM crops in India and our Government institutions.

The role of law in biosafety is critical. But if the law itself promotes the use and application of an untested technology, then not only the text of the Bill but the very law-making process needs to be re-visited. At a time when the issue of corruption in Governmental decision-making has come centrestage, the BRAI Bill is one such example. Not only the national law but also international law is being either distorted or disregarded.

The BRAI Bill has been widely criticised for its undemocratic and promotional approach it has towards GM crops instead of taking a precautionary one. A legal assessment of the report done by Supreme Court lawyer Ritwick Dutta on BRAI and released by Greenpeace this month, highlights fundamental flaws and how BRAI fails to conform to several principles which form the core of Indian and international environmental jurisprudence. This includes absolute liability for hazardous activities, the ‘polluter pays’ principle, the ‘precautionary principle’, onus of proof on those who want to change the status quo, effective public participation in environmental decision making and access to biosafety information.

"In compliance with the Cartagena protocol, India is under an obligation to ensure that its domestic laws are according to the provisions of the protocol. It appears from the preamble of the Bill that it adopts an adaptive approach, instead the main focus of the Bill should be the prevention of risks associated with modern biotechnology", said Ritwick Dutta.

The legal assessment also highlights the conflict of interest as the Department of Biotechnology under the Union Ministry of Science and Technology has proposed the BRAI Bill and its mandate clearly talks of promoting biotechnology in the country. This will only clear further impediments for the biotech companies who, critics says, will monopolise the Indian agriculture market.

The current Bill also reduces the role of the State Governments to that of a recommendatory capacity without having any decision-making powers on the release of genetically modified organisms through field trials or assess the need for it in a particular State. Madhya Pradesh, Kerala and Karnataka have formally written to the Union Government opposing the current BRAI proposals. It violates the constitutional authority of the State Governments over agriculture through an expediency clause, experts have said.

In one of the instances, Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu J Jayalalithaa, during the previous Budget Session in the State Assembly, announced that the Government will not “promote” GM crops and walked the talk by withdrawing budgetary provision. In a written speech circulated during a recent National Development Council meeting in New Delhi, she also reminded the Union Government that agriculture was a State subject and that the Union Government must not infringe into the powers of the States. However, the crux of the matter is that the draft Bill does exactly that. The latest to this list of States is West Bengal which has recently passed a resolution to ban the cultivation of GM seeds.

BRAI, experts have pointed out, also attempts to bypass the Right to Information Act under the garb of being "confidential commercial information" – a tool to smother all objections against genetically modified crops. RTI has time and again helped activists and civil society expose or get information on field trials of GMOs at various areas, which will be impossible if BRAI becomes law.

Finally, the Bill lacks long-term independent biosafety assessments which are essential to ascertain the safety of such risky technologies and their products.

With farmers reporting mixed results with Bt Cotton, and with inconclusive science on the health impacts of GM food crops, there are no conclusive answers on why the Union Government wants to fast track the entry of GM into the country. The BRAI Bill should be withdrawn and replaced with a regulatory regime whose main mandate should be to safeguard the health of citizens, the environment and consider the various social, economic and cultural aspects. The amendments to the current BRAI Bill 2011 need to be made after engaging in a rigorous public debate with all the stakeholders.