Are genetically modified crops safe enough?

Sakshi - October 15, 2012

A recent news report stated that the Planning Commission has advocated putting in place a “proper regulatory mechanism” before permitting the use of genetic modification in Indian crops. A recent Standing Committee report on genetically modified (GM) crops found shortcomings in the regulatory framework for such crops. The current framework is regulated primarily by two bodies: the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) and the Review Committee on Genetic Manipulation (RCGM). Given the inadequacy of the regulatory framework, the Standing Committee recommended that all research and development activities on transgenic crops be carried out only in containment (in laboratories) and that ongoing field trials in all states be discontinued. The blog provides a brief background on GM crops, their regulation in India and the key recommendations of the Standing Committee. What is GM technology? GM crops are usually developed through the insertion or deletion of genes from plant cells. Bt technology is a type of genetic modification in crops. It was introduced in India with Bt cotton. The debate around GM crops has revolved around issues of economic efficacy, human health, consumer choice and farmers’ rights. Some advantages of Bt technology are that it increases crop yield, decreases the use of pesticides, and improves quality of crops. However, the technology has also been known to cause crop loss due to resistance developed by pests and destruction of local crop varieties, impacting biodiversity. Approval process for commercial release of GM crops

Initially, the company developing the GM crop undertakes several biosafety assessments including, environmental, food, and feed safety assessments in containment.
This is followed by Bio-safety Research Trials which require prior approval of the regulators, the GEAC and the RCGM.
Approval for environmental release is accorded by the GEAC after considering the findings of bio-safety studies.
Finally, commercial release is permitted only for those GM crops found to be safe for humans and the environment.

Committee’s recommendations for strengthening the regulatory process The Standing Committee report found several shortcomings in the regulatory framework, some of which are as follows:

State governments are not mandatorily consulted for conducting open field trials on GM crops. Several states such as Kerala and Bihar have opposed field trials for GM crops. The Committee recommended that mandatory consultation with state governments be built into the regulatory process.
The key regulators, the GEAC and the RCGM, suffer from poor organisational set-up and infrastructure. The Committee recommended that the regulatory framework be given statutory backing so that there is no scope for ambiguity or complacency on the part of the authorities responsible for the oversight of GM organisms. It urged the government to introduce the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority Bill.
There is evidence that the GEAC has not complied with international treaties. These include the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. It recommended that legislation relating to liability and redress for damage arising from living modified organisms be enacted.
Some international scientists have raised doubts about the safety of Bt Brinjal and the way tests were conducted. To remedy this situation, the Committee recognised the need for an overarching legislation on biosafety to ensure that biotechnology is introduced without compromising the safety of biodiversity, human and livestock health, and environmental protection.

Note that over the last few sessions of Parliament, the government has listed the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority Bill for introduction; however the Bill has not been introduced yet. The Bill sets up an independent authority for the regulation of GM crops. For a PRS summary of the report and access to the full report, see here and here.

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

Are genetically modified crops safe enough?

De-allocation of coal blocks

Recent Posts