To eat or not to eat: Bt Brinjal

Kaushiki - February 11, 2010

The row over Bt Brinjal, a genetically modified version of the plant, provoked the government into imposing a moratorium on the commercial cultivation of the plant in India. The debate has revolved around issues of economic efficacy, human health, consumer choice and farmers’ rights. Jairam Ramesh, the Minister of State for Environment and Forests, made public his views on the subject, a gist of which is given below:

The Genetic Engineering Approvals Committee (GEAC) report recommended commercial cultivation of Bt Brinjal but qualified it by stating that since the issue has important policy implications at the national level, the government should take a final view on the matter.
Most of the state governments have expressed concern and have sought to ban the use of Bt Brinjal, or all GM crops.
Pesticides have harmful effect on human health and Bt technology is one way of reducing pesticide use. However, other routes such as non-pesticide pest management can be explored. For example, about 6 lakh farmers in Andhra Pradesh practice non-pesticide pest management over an area of about 20 lakh acres.
Safety is a concern since the kind of tests that have been done is not specific or stringent enough to detect toxins. Also, tests have only been carried out by the developers of the product, Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Ltd. (Mahyco). (The results of the biosafety tests are available on the GEAC website).
There is no large-scale public funded biotechnology effort toward agriculture, which could compete with Mahyco. Monsanto is the main producer of Bt Brinjal, and Mahyco is owned to the extent of 26% by Monsanto.
While two government owned agricultural universities -- University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad and Tamil Nadu Agricultural University (TNAU), Coimbatore – have produced Bt Brinjal along with Mahyco, doubts have been raised about how Bt related research in these universities have been funded.
There are apprehensions that there will be diversity loss in the variety of Brinjal if Bt Brinjal is introduced, and this fear cannot be glossed over.
While Bt Cotton and Bt Brinjal are not comparable, the introduction of Bt Cotton in India has made India the second largest grower of cotton in the world. Over 90% of cotton farmers in India cultivate Bt Cotton. Many farmers support Bt Cotton on economic grounds but some did express doubts.
The Central Institute of Cotton Research, Nagpur has developed a Bt cotton variety (Bikaneri Nerma) whose seeds can be kept by farmers for planting during the next season. The Director of the Institute while expressing support for Bt Brinjal has mentioned that resistance development is a serious issue. Therefore, more tests that are well-designed, widely-accepted and independently conducted are necessary.
The GEAC process has been questioned by Dr P.M. Bhargava, the Supreme Court nominee on GEAC. He opposed the recommendation on the ground that all necessary tests had not been carried out before coming to a decision. The 2006 committee of the GEAC had asked for several tests to be conducted which were not taken into account by the second expert committee. All GEAC reports (including additional tests) of tests conducted with regard to Bt Brinjal are in the public domain.
There is some evidence that the GEAC not followed global regulatory norms of which India is a party. For example, the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, Rio Declaration on Environment and Development etc.
Some international scientists have raised doubts about Bt Brinjal and the way the tests were conducted.
Many Indian scientists have supported commercialization of Bt Brinjal such as Dr G. Padmanabhan of the Indian Institute of Science; Dr Deepak Pental, Vice Chancellor of Delhi University; and Dr Raj Bhatnagar of the International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, New Delhi. However, even they have mentioned the need for a statutory body with regulatory powers and R&D capabilities to govern all aspects of GM crops.
The Indian Council of Agricultural research and a number of farmer’s groups have come out in support of the move to introduce Bt Brinjal.

In order to understand the process followed by GEAC before giving the green signal to Bt Brinjal, we have made a timeline in which the plant was approved and the bodies involved in the process.

2000-2005	Scientific tests carried out by Mahyco on Bt Brinjal
2006	Mahyco submits bio-safety data to GEAC (regulatory body under the Ministry of Environment and Forests). Seeks permission for large scale trials.
	Supreme Court stops ongoing field trials of GM crops due to a PIL filed by civil society representatives.
2007	The expert committee 1 set up by GEAC, submits its report. Recommends seven more studies on bio-safety be repeated for reconfirmation of data generated during confined multi-location trials but approves large scale trials.
	Supreme Court lifts ban on GM crop field trials subject to conditions such as isolation distance etc.
	As per GEAC direction, Indian Institute of Vegetable Research (IIVR) takes up the responsibility of large scale trails of Mahyco's Bt Brinjal trials at 10 research institutions across the country in 2007 and 11 in 2008.
2009	Jan: IIVR submits the results of the large scale trails. Due to concerns raised by several stakeholders, GEAC constitutes another expert committee to look into adequacy of biosafety data generated as well as the concerns raised by all stakeholders.
	Oct 8: Expert-committee 2 submits its report. States benefits of Bt Brinjal far outweigh the perceived and projected risks.
	Oct 14: GEAC approves the environmental release of Bt Brinjal containing the event EE1 (with one dissent note from P.M. Bhargava).
	Oct 15: Jairam Ramesh announces a nationwide consultation in January and February of 2010 pending a final decision on this issue.
2010	Jan 13 to Feb 6: Public meetings were organized on the Bt Brinjal issue. The summary of the consultations is available on the Ministry’s website.
	Many states announce ban on commercial cultivation of Bt Brinjal including Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh and Karnataka.
	Feb 9: Jairam Ramesh decides to halt the commercialization of Bt Brinjal.

Policy

Explained: Draft amendments to the IT Rules 2021

Omir Kumar - June 9, 2022

On June 6, 2022, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology released the draft amendments to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (IT Rules, 2021) for public feedback. The IT Rules were notified on February 25, 2021, under the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act). The Ministry noted that there is a need to amend the Rules to keep up with the challenges and gaps emerging in an expanding digital ecosystem. In this blog post, we give a brief background to the IT Rules, 2021 and explain the key proposed changes to the Rules.

Background to the IT Rules, 2021

The IT Act exempts intermediaries from liability for user-generated content on their platform provided they meet certain due diligence requirements. Intermediaries are entities that store or transmit data on behalf of other persons and include telecom and internet service providers, online marketplaces, search engines, and social media sites. IT Rules specify the due diligence requirements for the intermediaries. These include: (i) informing users about rules and regulations, privacy policy, and terms and conditions for usage of its services, including types of content which are prohibited, (ii) expeditiously taking down content upon an order from the government or courts, (iii) providing a grievance redressal mechanism to resolve complaints from users about violation of Rules, and (iv) enabling identification of the first originator of the information on its platform under certain conditions. It also specifies a framework for content regulation of online publishers of news and current affairs and curated audio-visual content. For an analysis of the IT Rules 2021 please see here.

Key changes proposed to the IT Rules 2021

Key changes proposed by the draft amendments are as follows:

Obligations of intermediaries: The 2021 Rules require the intermediary to “publish” rules and regulations, privacy policy and user agreement for access or usage of its services. The Rules specify restrictions on the types of content that users are allowed to create, upload, or share. The Rules require intermediaries to “inform” users about these restrictions. Proposed amendments seek to expand the obligation on intermediaries to include: (i) “ensuring compliance” with rules and regulations, privacy policy, and user agreement, and (ii) "causing users to not" create, upload, or share prohibited content.
The proposed amendments also add that intermediaries should take all reasonable measures to ensure accessibility of their services to all users, with a reasonable expectation of due diligence, privacy, and transparency. Further, intermediaries should respect the constitutional rights of all users. The Ministry observed that such a change was necessary as several intermediaries have acted in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens.
Appeal mechanism against decisions of grievance officers: The 2021 Rules require intermediaries to designate a grievance officer to address complaints regarding violations of the Rules. The Ministry observed that there have been instances where these officers do not address the grievances satisfactorily or fairly. A person aggrieved with the decision of the grievance officer needs to approach courts to seek redressal. Hence, the draft amendments propose an alternative mechanism for such appeals. A Grievance Appellate Committee will be formed by the central government to hear appeals against the decisions of grievance officers. The Committee will consist of a chairperson and other members appointed by the central government through a notification. The Committee is required to dispose of such appeals within 30 days from the date of receipt. The concerned intermediary must comply with the order passed by the Committee. Note that the proposed amendments do not restrict users from directly approaching courts.

Expeditious removal of prohibited content: The 2021 Rules require intermediaries to acknowledge complaints regarding violation of Rules within 24 hours, and dispose of complaints within 15 days. The proposed amendments add that the complaints concerning the removal of prohibited content must be addressed within 72 hours. The Ministry observed that given the potential for virality of content over internet, a stricter timeline will help in removing prohibited content expeditiously.

Comments on the draft amendments are invited until July 6, 2022.

Home

MPs & MLAs

Legislatures

Parliament

State

Bills & Acts

Budgets

Policy

LAMP

Careers

To eat or not to eat: Bt Brinjal

Explained: Draft amendments to the IT Rules 2021

Recent Posts