Why The Supreme Court Should Lift The Freeze On GM Mustard Trials

If the Supreme Court does not accede to the government's request made on Tuesday for a defreeze on field activity pertaining to genetically modified mustard, another year would be lost and the regulators would not be any wiser about its performance in various agro-climatic conditions and impact on honeybees and other pollinators.  

According to news reports, the government sought leave from the court to withdraw its oral undertaking given on Nov. 3 last year that "no precipitate action" would be taken till the suit was disposed of. The court had ordered a freeze till Nov. 10 last year, but the hearings spilt over. Ten dates were fixed thereafter, on some of which there were no hearings.  

Mustard is sown in early winter.  

Before the court cried halt, the developers had planted GM mustard hybrid DMH-11 in their experimental fields at six locations in the mustard growing states: Rajasthan, Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Assam.   

The regulator for GM organisms—the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee—had approved last October the "environmental" release of GM mustard on the condition that its impact on honeybees and other pollinators be undertaken after release to gather scientific evidence under Indian agro-climatic conditions and as a precautionary measure. Approval for commercial release was to follow if there were no red flags.

The data on the behaviour of honeybees and pollinators with GM rapeseed, which belongs to the same Brassica family as mustard, was not considered adequate. The developers had submitted to the GEAC that Canada, the United States and Australia had approved GM rapeseed in 1996, 2002 and 2003, respectively, without any conditions. There is a history of safe use, they said.  

The GEAC had also allowed seed production preparatory to commercial release. Government research agencies conduct all-India coordinated research trials at multiple sites in the states where a crop is grown before they release any seed for commercial use. These trials are conducted by institutes of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research.

The developers of DMH-11 say they have produced enough seed for the trials from the crops that were planted before the court stay. But the agronomic and pollinator trials cannot happen without the Supreme Court giving its approval.  

The anti-GM activists are objecting to the herbicide tolerance trait in the GM mustard hybrid. They say that herbicides are toxic. Already, they are being used in large quantities. If herbicide tolerant hybrid mustard is allowed for commercial use, the use of herbicides will increase manifold affecting biodiversity, they said.  

The government’s contention is that the herbicide tolerance trait is not intended for commercial use. DMH-11 plants do not die when sprayed with the herbicide—glufosinate—which goes by the popular brand name Basta. But, glufosinate has not been approved for use on mustard.  

If that is the case, why is the herbicide tolerance trait needed? This is where it gets a little technical. Mustard is a self-pollinating crop, which means its flowers have both the male and the female sexual organs. To produce a plant with hybrid vigour, it has to be cross-pollinated. For this, a line has to be emasculated (or made male sterile) so it can be fertilised with the pollen of another line.

In DMH-11, the Indian mega variety called Varuna has been made male sterile with a barnase gene obtained from an agrobacterium. It also has a foreign bar gene which confers herbicide tolerance. To produce many plants of genetically modified male sterile Varuna, it has to be crossed with normal, non-genetically modified Varuna. The resultant progeny will segregate and half of it will be male sterile and half non-male sterile. When the herbicide is sprayed, only the sterile plants containing both the bar and barnase genes will survive.   

This male sterile Varuna line is crossed with an East European line (Early Hira-2), which has the fertility restorer barstar gene, also obtained from an agrobacterium. It also has the bar gene for the same reasons as stated above. The government's contention is that herbicide tolerance is needed at the intermediate stage for the efficient production of mustard hybrids. Though it will be present in the seed that will be commercially sold, it will be marketed for higher yield and not herbicide tolerance. 

In its submissions last year, the government also said that the petitioners can object only if the regulatory process as prescribed by law has been violated. They cannot decide whether GM crops should or should not be approved. That is the executive's prerogative.  

"The issues raised by the petitioners fall within the domain of the executive aided by scientific and other technical experts," the government said. "The research, development and use of genetic engineering technologies is a highly technical matter guided by views that emerge from scientific consensus among subject experts."

"As such, it is most humbly submitted that the inquiry of this Hon'ble Court may be limited to whether there is an adequate regulatory mechanism in place governing this field and whether there has been material compliance with the same," it said.

The two writ petitions before the court were filed in 2004 and 2005. The developers of DMH-11—a team of Delhi University scientists—have worked on it for about two decades. The GEAC had recommended it for commercial release in May 2017. But the then Environment Minister Harsh Vardhan, who is the approving authority, did not accept the recommendation and sought further trials.  

It took five years for the pro-science tendency within the government to gain the upper hand. India's overdependence on imported cooking oil and high and rising import bill seem to have forced a rethink.

Vivian Fernandes has more than 30 years of practice in journalism.

The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of BQ Prime or its editorial team.