GM mustard awaits a ‘competent authority’ as uncertainty surrounds

Even as the Supreme Court has called for status quo on planting genetically modified (GM) mustard, jeopardising the latest Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee’s (GEAC) “environmental” release of GM Dhara Mustard Hybrid (DMH)-11, for many the latter’s nod in itself is a milestone in the history of Indian agriculture research.

If finally allowed, the release, according to sectoral experts and scientists, could open the door for seed production and eventual commercial release of the hybrid that in turn might facilitate developing more viable and high-yielding varieties of mustard.

Mustard has an all-India average yield of 1-1.3 million tonnes (MT) per hectare, but scientists said that trials conducted during 2010-2015 at eight locations under the supervision of Indian Council of Agricultural Research’s Directorate of Rapeseed and Mustard Research (ICAR-DRMR) in Bharatpur, Rajasthan, showed that DHM-11 has an average yield advantage of 28 per cent over the mega variety “Varuna” and 37 per cent over other zonal varieties.

Given that India’s annual mustard seed production is 11-12 MT, the cultivation of DMH-11 could push it up significantly, thereby increasing the availability of domestically produced edible oils. In fact, with 40 per cent oil content, mustard is one of India’s highest oil-bearing oilseeds. With its high yield, GM mustard could go a long way in controlling India’s edible oil import bill. In FY21, for instance, India imported around 13.35 MT edible oil involving an outgo of around ~117,000 crore in foreign exchange.

But just as in 2017 and with all earlier episodes related to approval and clearances of GM crops, this time, too, the process and the methods are wrapped in mystery with no official confirmation of whether all roadblocks have been finally lifted or some hindrances remain for India to get its first-ever GM food crop.

In 2017, an almost similar recommendation was granted by the GEAC on the application for environmental release for GM mustard with certain terms and conditions, but it was left to the “competent authority” for final approval. The 2017 recommendation was granted in the GEAC’s 133rd meeting.

The “competent authority” was believed to be the then minister for environment and forests, Anil Madhav Dave, who was succeeded by Harsh Vardhan after his death.

Following intense pressure from pressure groups, the GEAC in its very next meeting held soon after put the approvals on hold. “Subsequent to receipt of various representations from different stakeholders, matters related to environmental release of transgenic mustard are kept pending for further review,” it said in a one-line order.

Anti-GM activists and members of the civil society, while questioning the euphoria over the recent GEAC approval, wonder how the situation is different from 2017 when a similar nod was given only to be rescinded after a few days.

The scientific community and pro-GM groups have pinned their hopes on the language of the GEAC’s 147th minutes of the meeting held on October 18 where no further nod from any “competent authority” has been sought.

This time around, the approval is far more detailed and lays down the next course of action in minute detail and also cites a letter that has been sent by the GEAC to Deepak Pental, the developer of DMH-11, detailing the GEAC’s recommendations and also the process to be followed as regards GM mustard.

“I don’t think a situation similar to 2017 will happen as all clearances seem to be in place,” Pental told <Business Standard> in a recent interview.

He first developed the hybrid back in 2002 and is hopeful that if all things are put in place, Indian farmers can finally lay their hands on GM mustard in the next two years.

However, critics and anti-GM groups say there’s still many a slip between the cup and the lip.

The two-year window between now and probable commercialisation of GM mustard gives lobbyists ample time to reverse the recommendation or force a pushback. Their optimism also stems from the very nature of the GEAC and the change in its role and purpose over the years.

Back in 2010, during the height of a controversy over Bt brinjal, the mandarins at the ministry of environment and forests under Jairam Ramesh had through an ordinance changed the GEAC’s name from Genetic Engineering <Approval> Committee to Genetic Engineering <Appraisal> Committee.

This crucial change, critics say, was meant to ensure the GEAC does not grant “arbitrary approvals” and there would always be another authority to vet its decisions. In effect, the change meant that the GEAC can only give recommendations and the final say rests with the minister and the government.

It is this very change in the GEAC that critics of GM crops are citing to conclude that finality on GM mustard has not been reached and there is still some way to go.

“In 2010, a gazette notification was issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, renaming the GEAC. This was not a mere gesture, but a meaningful policy decision, given the many irresponsible decisions that the GEAC kept taking, in an approval capacity. Given that it is only an appraisal committee, it could not have approved GM mustard,” Kavitha Kuruganti from the Alliance for Sustainable and Holistic Agriculture said.

She said the GEAC itself in 2017, after giving its first green signal to GM mustard, noted in its meeting’s minutes that it is recommending for further “approval to be given by competent authority”, which means that the committee at least knows that it is not an approving body.

Clearly, just as in all previous GM events and crops that are pending approval, this time, too, it seems the government will determine whether they stop or let GM proceed further.