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

Protection of healthcare service personnel

Anya Bharat Ram - April 29, 2020

Amidst news reports of violence against healthcare workers during the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Epidemic Diseases (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 was promulgated on April 22, 2020. The Ordinance amends the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897. The Act provides for the prevention of the spread of dangerous epidemic diseases. The Ordinance amends the Act to include protections for healthcare personnel combatting epidemic diseases and expands the powers of the central government to prevent the spread of such diseases.

Who is considered a healthcare service personnel under the Ordinance?

The Ordinance defines healthcare service personnel as a person who is at risk of contracting the epidemic disease while carrying out duties related to the epidemic such as caring for patients. They include: (i) public and clinical healthcare providers such as doctors and nurses, (ii) any person empowered under the Act to take measures to prevent the outbreak of the disease, and (iii) other persons designated as such by the respective state government.

What is considered an ‘act of violence’ under the Ordinance?

An ‘act of violence’ includes any of the following acts committed against a healthcare service personnel: (i) harassment impacting living or working conditions, (ii) harm, injury, hurt, or danger to life, (iii) obstruction in discharge of his duties, and (iv) loss or damage to the property or documents of the healthcare service personnel. Property is defined to include a: (i) clinical establishment, (ii) quarantine facility, (iii) mobile medical unit, and (iv) other property in which a healthcare service personnel has direct interest, in relation to the epidemic.

What are the offences and penalties outlined under the Ordinance?

The Ordinance specifies that no person can: (i) participate in or commit an act of violence against a healthcare service personnel, or (ii) participate in or cause damage or loss to any property during an epidemic. A person committing these two offences is punishable with imprisonment between three months and five years, and a fine between Rs 50,000 and two lakh rupees. However, for such offences, charges may by dropped by the victim with the permission of the Court. If an act of violence against a healthcare service personnel causes grievous harm, the person committing the offence will be punishable with imprisonment between six months and seven years, and a fine between one lakh rupees and five lakh rupees. All offences under the Ordinance are cognizable (i.e., a police officer can arrest without a warrant) and non-bailable.

Do healthcare service personnel that face violence get compensation?

Persons convicted of offences under the Ordinance will be liable to pay a compensation to the healthcare service personnel whom they have hurt. Such compensation will be determined by the Court. In the case of damage or loss of property, the compensation payable to the victim will be twice the amount of the fair market value of the damaged or lost property, as determined by the Court.

What protections did healthcare service personnel have prior to the promulgation of this Ordinance?

Currently, the Indian Penal Code, 1860 provides for penalties for any harm caused to an individual or any damage caused to property. The Code also prescribes penalties for causing grievous hurt i.e., permanent damage to another individual.

The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare had released a draft Bill to address incidences of violence against healthcare professionals and damage to the property of clinical establishments in September 2019. The draft Bill prohibits any acts of violence committed against healthcare service personnel including doctors, nurses, para medical workers, medical students, and ambulance drivers, among others. It also prohibits any damage caused to hospitals, clinics, and ambulances.

Table 1 compares the offences and penalties under the Ordinance, the draft Bill, and Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Table 1: Offences and penalties with regard to violence against healthcare service personnel

Offences and Penalties	Epidemic Diseases (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020	Healthcare Service Personnel and Clinical Establishments (Prohibition of violence and damage to property) Bill, 2019	Indian Penal Code, 1860
Violence	Violence against a healthcare service personnel is punishable with imprisonment between three months and five years, and a fine between Rs 50,000 and two lakh rupees. (Act of violence includes harassment, hurt/harm, and damage to property)	Violence against a healthcare service personnel, is punishable with imprisonment between six months and five years, and a fine of up to five lakh rupees. (Act of violence includes harassment, hurt/harm, and damage to property)	Causing voluntary hurt is punishable with imprisonment up to one year, or with fine up to Rs 1,000, or both.
Violence causing grievous harm	Violence against a healthcare service personnel causing grievous harm is punishable with imprisonment between six months and seven years, and a fine between one lakh rupees and five lakh rupees.	Violence against a healthcare service personnel causing grievous harm is punishable with imprisonment between three years and ten years, and a fine between two lakh rupees and ten lakh rupees.	Voluntarily causing grievous hurt is punishable with imprisonment up to seven years, and a fine.
Damage to property	Damage or loss to any property during an epidemic, is punishable with imprisonment between three months and five years, and a fine between Rs 50,000 and two lakh rupees.	Damage or loss to any property of a clinical establishment, is punishable with imprisonment between six months and five years, and a fine of up to five lakh rupees.	Loss or damage to the property worth Rs 50 or more is punishable with imprisonment up to two years, or fine, or both.

Sources: Epidemic Diseases (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020, Healthcare Service Personnel and Clinical Establishments (Prohibition of violence and damage to property) Bill, 2019, and Indian Penal Code, 1860; PRS.

Are there provisions for the safety of healthcare service personnel at the state level?

Several states have passed legislation to protect healthcare service personnel. These states include: Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Gujarat, Haryana, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Manipur, Odisha, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Tripura, Uttarakhand and West Bengal.

Most state Acts define healthcare service personnel to include registered doctors, nurses, medical and nursing students, and paramedical staff. Further, they define violence as activities causing harm, injury, endangering life, intimidation, obstruction to the ability of a healthcare service person to discharge their duty, and loss or damage to property in a healthcare service institution.

All state Acts prohibit: (i) any act of violence against healthcare service persons, or (ii) damage to property in healthcare service institutions. In most of these states, sf a person partakes in these prohibited activities, he/she is punishable with imprisonment up to three years and a fine of up to fifty thousand rupees. However, in certain states such as Tamil Nadu the maximum prison sentence may be up to ten years.

For more information on the spread of COVID-19 and the central and state government response to the pandemic, please see here.

Home

MPs & MLAs

Legislatures

Parliament

State

Bills & Acts

Budgets

Policy

LAMP

Careers

To eat or not to eat: Bt Brinjal

Protection of healthcare service personnel

Recent Posts