Nod for GM mustard

• Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) has cleared the controversial transgenic mustard, DMH-11, for commercial cultivation.

About GM Mustard:

• The GM variant, called DMH11 (Dhara Mustard Hybrid 11), is said to deliver 25-30% higher mustard-seed yields compared to the best “check” varieties currently being grown in the country.
• Hybrids are normally obtained by crossing two genetically diverse plants from the same species. The first-generation offspring resulting from it has higher yields than what either of the parents is individually capable of giving. But there is no natural hybridisation system in mustard, unlike in, say, cotton, maize or tomato. This is because its flowers contain both the female (pistil) and male (stamen) reproductive organs, making the plant naturally self-pollinating. To the extent that the egg cells of one plant cannot be fertilised by the pollen discharged from the stamen of another, it restricts the scope for developing hybrids. Researcher has created a viable hybridisation system in mustard using GM technology. And use of GM technology is main reason of its opposition.
• The hybrid went through Biosafety Research Level-1 (BRL-1) tests in 2011-12 and 2012-13, in Rajasthan, under the coordination of the National Research Centre for Rapeseed-Mustard at Bharatpur, and BRL-2 tests at the Indian Agriculture Research Institute in Delhi and the Punjab Agricultural University in the 2014-15 season.
• The institute sought a final approval from the GEAC in December for “environmental release” of the crop. But even before the application process was initiated, anti-GM NGOs and activists cutting across ideological lines began protests, in a recreation of the agitation against Bt brinjal, also a GM crop, in 2010.
• In 2010, Bt brinjal had got the final approval from the GEAC but the then Environment Minister put an indefinite moratorium on that decision which still holds.

Analysis:

• Genetically-engineered crops can cause insecticides to build up in the soil, affect the food chain, transfer genes to wild relatives and contaminate natural crops.
• `Gene stacking' in GM crops is a major concern, more so for mustard/rapeseed. Stacking is what happens when more than one GM trait is found in the same plant, as a result of cross-pollination in the field. The agronomic and ecological impact of cumulative transgene stacking is poorly understood and this may lead to farmers using more herbicides, potentially resulting in increased damage to biodiversity. It can also lead to `the gradual development of `weediness' in native species'. If a neighbouring farm also unknowingly used GM-contaminated seed, this would be an obvious way for stacking to occur.
• The genetically-modified mustard is, in reality, a hybrid. And, like any other hybrid it requires to be cultivated under more intensive farming practices. At a time when sustainable farming and low-input agriculture are becoming the buzzwords, it is surprising that agricultural scientists continue to recommend crop varieties that will end up doing more harm to the environment and crop fields.
• GM mustard will require almost double the quantity of fertiliser and water, thereby accentuating the sustainability barriers that green revolution areas already faced.
• Health concerns include: allergenicity; gene transfer, especially of antibiotic-resistant genes, from GM foods to cells or bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract; and `outcrossing', or the movement of genes from GM plants to conventional crops, posing indirect threats to food safety and security.
• GM mustard can affect honeybees directly and indirectly through effecting flowering and pollen production.
• GM mustard is the first food crop to have applied for commercialisation after the indefinite ban on the GM brinjal in 2010.
• But on the positive side, The opponents of GM mustard point out that cotton is not a food crop, while mustard is India’s largest edible oil-yielding crop. However, there are many inconsistencies in this argument too. First, cotton-seed yields not only fibre (lint), but also oil and oilcake (meal) fed to animals. Cotton-seed oil is, in fact, the second largest produced edible oil in the country (1.4 million tonnes) after mustard (2 million tonnes). That makes cotton no less of a food crop. And since 95 per cent of India’s cotton production is today Bt, its allegedly harmful toxins would already have been consumed directly or indirectly during the last decade and more.
• India annually imports 3 million tonnes of soyabean oil and another 0.4 million tonnes of rapeseed oil, which are predominantly GM. So the criticism of this seems to be misinformed.
• Complaints against a less-than-robust regulatory environment for genetically modified organisms in the country are genuine. There is lack of transparency as well as conflict of interest in the system. The Genetic Engineering Approval Committee, which is responsible for approving large-scale releases and commercialisation of GMOs, functions under the Ministry of Environment and Forests and is not entirely independent. The case of the Review Committee on Genetic Manipulation that supervises and clears research activities and also small-scale field trials is even more stark. It is part of the Department of Biotechnology, whose primary task is to promote biotechnology. DBT therefore is the promoter as well as the regulator. On several occasions, developers of transgenic crops have also been members of regulatory committees. Government plan to merge various authority into single has not fulfilled yet. To create more accountable system such steps needed to be taken.

By: Vishal