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.

Parliament

De-allocation of coal blocks

Jhalak - November 22, 2012

Recently, the government issued letters de-allocating coal blocks of various companies, based on the recommendations of the Inter Ministerial Group (IMG). This post discusses the history behind the de-allocations, the parameters the IMG used while examining the progress of various coal blocks and the action that has been taken by the government. The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) released a performance audit report on 'Allocation of Coal Blocks and Augmentation of Coal Production' on August 17, 2012. Some of the key findings of the Report were:

The government failed to conduct competitive bids for the allocation of coal blocks. This resulted in a benefit of Rs 1.86 lakh crore (approx.) to private allottees. The government could have tapped some of this financial benefit by expediting the decision on competitive bidding for allocation of coal blocks.
The implementation schedule of a number of coal blocks has been delayed by one to ten years. This schedule relates to the time frame within which the Mining Plan for the block has to be approved, various clearances have to be submitted, land acquired, etc.
From 2005, the Ministry of Coal (MoC) required the allottees to provide bank guarantees which would be encashed if they failed to meet the above mentioned milestones. The CAG observed that there was a delay in introducing the bank guarantee and linking it with milestones.

The IMG on Coal was constituted for the periodic review of the development of coal blocks and end use plants. The IMG had requested a status paper from the Coal Controller, MoC. This has been submitted to the IMG but is not available. The IMG will decide if private allottees have made substantial progress based on certain parameters. The parameters used by IMG are: approval of Mining Plan, status of environment and forest clearance, grant of mining lease and progress made in land acquisition. They are also examining the physical status of End Use Plant (EUP), investment made and the expected date of opening of the mine and commissioning of EUP. The IMG has made the following recommendations:

The coal blocks of companies that have not made substantial progress should be de-allocated. Additionally, they have recommended the deduction of bank guarantee in the cases where the private companies have not reached the milestones as per the time line decided upon. As of November 22, 2012, the IMG has recommended the de-allocation of the coal blocks listed in Table 1 and the deduction of bank guarantees for the coal blocks in Table 2.
Since, the system of bank guarantee was only introduced in March 2005, not all coal blocks had submitted a bank guarantee. Where a bank guarantee has not been provided but there is substantial progress in meeting the milestones, the IMG may require the allottee to submit a bank guarantee.

[table id=1 /]

[table id=5 /]

Of the coal blocks that the IMG has recommended for de-allocation, until now the government has accepted the de-allocation of the following: Bramhadih block, Gourangdih, New Patrapara, Chinora block, Warora (Southern Part) block, Lalgarh (North) block, Bhaskarpara block, Dahegaon/Makardhokra-IV block, Gondkhari block and Ramanwara North block. The government has accepted the deduction of bank guarantees for blocks such as Moitra, Jitpur, Bhaskarpara, Durgapur II/Sariya, Dahegaon/Makardhokra-IV, Marki Mangli II, III and IV, Gondhkari, Lohari, Radhikapur East, Bijahan and Nerad Malegaon. The letters issued by the government de-allocating coal blocks and deducting bank guarantees are available here.

For a detailed summary of the CAG Report, click here.

Home

MPs & MLAs

Legislatures

Parliament

State

Bills & Acts

Budgets

Policy

LAMP

Careers

To eat or not to eat: Bt Brinjal

De-allocation of coal blocks

Recent Posts