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

Recent rise in LPG prices

Anurag Vaishnav - February 20, 2020

Last week, oil-marketing companies (or OMCs, such as Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited) raised the price of domestic LPG in the country. [1] The price of a domestic cylinder (14.2kg) has increased from Rs 714 in January 2020 to Rs 858.5 in February 2020. This is a 20% hike in the price of a LPG cylinder. Note that this is the sixth consecutive month for which LPG prices have been revised upwards. Figure 1 shows the variation in price of a domestic (non-subsidised) LPG cylinder in Delhi over the last year.

Figure 1: Variation in price of non-subsidised domestic LPG cylinder

Sources: Indian Oil and Corporation Limited; PRS.

How is the price of LPG cylinders determined?

LPG prices are revised every month. The price is determined by public sector OMCs namely, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, in line with the changes in the international market prices and other market conditions. [2] The international market price affects the import parity price of petroleum products (the price that importers pay for import of product at the respective Indian ports). This includes exchange rate, ocean freight, insurance and customs duty among others.

The Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas has stated that the recent hike in the price of LPG cylinder is due to a sharp rise in international LPG prices during January 2020 (from USD 448/Metric Tonne to USD 567/Metric Tonne). [3]

What is the difference between the price of a subsidised and non-subsidised cylinder?

The price determined by the OMCs reflects the price of a non-subsidised domestic LPG cylinder. The government modulates the effective price to provide subsidised LPG cylinders to consumers under the 'Pratyaksha Hastaantarit Laabh' direct benefit transfer (or DBT-PAHAL) scheme. [4] Under the scheme, a consumer (with annual income of up to Rs 10 lakh) can avail DBT cash-subsidy for a LPG cylinder. The beneficiaries buy LPG cylinders at market rate and subsequently receive subsidy directly in their bank accounts.

With the recent increase in price of a LPG cylinder, the government has increased the subsidy amount for PAHAL consumers from Rs. 153.86 per cylinder to Rs. 291.48 per cylinder (89% increase).³ This is done to ensure that the subsidized LPG consumers are insulated from the volatility of LPG prices in the international market. Table 1 shows the amount of subsidy provided by the government for LPG cylinder. Note that price of a subsidised cylinder has increased from Rs 494 to Rs 567 (14.8%) from February 2019 to February 2020.

Table 1: Difference between the price of subsidised and non-subsidised LPG cylinder

As on	Non-subsidised cylinder	Subsidised cylinder	Subsidy
February 2018	Rs 736.00	Rs 495.63	Rs 240.37
February 2019	Rs 659.00	Rs 493.53	Rs 165.47
February 2020	Rs 858.50	Rs 567.02	Rs 291.48

Sources: Unstarred Question No.1211, February 13, 2019, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Rajya Sabha.
Note: Prices are at Delhi.

How many people avail the subsidy on LPG cylinders?

Currently, there are a total of 27.16 crore LPG (domestic) connections in the country.³ Of these, 26.12 crore (94%) consumers are beneficiaries under the PAHAL scheme, and therefore, can avail LPG cylinders at subsidised rates. Note that, under the scheme, a maximum of 12 subsidised cylinders per year can be availed under one connection. Further, a household cannot have more than one connection.

What is the cost of subsidy for the government?

The subsidy on domestic LPG is met through the budgetary grants of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. In 2020-21, the government is estimated to spend Rs 37,256 crore on LPG subsidy. This includes Rs 35,605 crore for DBT-PAHAL and Rs 1,118 crore for Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana. This is an increase of 9.3% from the expenditure in 2019-20 of Rs 34,086 crore (revised estimate). Note that LPG subsidy constitutes 87% of the Ministry's total budget (Rs 42,901 crore).

Figure 2 below shows the year-wise expenditure on LPG subsidy, and as a proportion of the total budget of the Ministry from 2015-16 to 2020-21.

Figure 2: LPG subsidy over the years (2015-16 to 2020-21).

Sources: Union Budget Documents; PRS.

For more trends and analysis related to the finances of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, see here.

[1] "LPG price hiked by Rs 144.5 per cylinder", Economic Times, February 12, 2020, https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/energy/oil-gas/lpg-price-hiked-by-rs-144-5-per-cylinder/articleshow/74096745.cms.

[2] Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ), Petroleum Planning and Analysis Cell, https://www.ppac.gov.in/content/137_3_Faq.aspx.

[3] "LPG Price is Derived based on International Market Price", Press Information Bureau, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, February 13, 2020.

[4] PAHAL-Direct Benefits Transfer for LPG (DBTL) Consumers Scheme, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, http://petroleum.nic.in/dbt/whatisdbtl.html.

Home

MPs & MLAs

Legislatures

Parliament

State

Bills & Acts

Budgets

Policy

LAMP

Careers

To eat or not to eat: Bt Brinjal

Recent rise in LPG prices

Recent Posts