India braced for fireworks over GM aubergine ban

Almost a year has passed since India's environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, imposed a two-year moratorium on growing genetically modified (GM) brinjal (aubergine), until the public was convinced of the crop's safety. Despite expectations of a quiet first anniversary, there could be fireworks in 2012 when Ramesh decides on whether to lift or continue the moratorium, a pointer to the road ahead for other GM food crops under trial in India – cabbage, cauliflower, corn, chickpea groundnut, mustard, okra, potato, rice, sorghum, sugarcane and tomato. Just last month, the Philippines suspended Bt brinjal trials after local officials uprooted Bt brinjal plants in two out of seven trial sites. Bangladesh, which also plans to test it, is watching the Indian moratorium. Efforts continue at home to lift the ban. Scientists are seeking to clip the environment ministry's wings in biotech matters, with the proposed National Biotechnology Regulation Authority as a single-window clearance for all biotech products, such as GM brinjal. A bill on the NBRA, helpfully drafted by India's department of biotechnology, is due to be introduced in the parliament this year. For a recap, the GM brinjal was developed by the Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company (Mahyco), in which the American company Monsanto has a 26% stake. It contains a gene from Bacillus thuringiensis (hence its name Bt brinjal), a soil bacterium which codes for a toxin that kills fruit borer pest that can damage up to 70% of the crop harvest. But the brinjal borer has never triggered a national crisis, nor has it felled empires in India, the world's largest producer of brinjals and one of the centres of its origin. Still, I accept that one must be prepared for all contingencies. GM brinjal is not India's first GM plant: Mahyco's Bt cotton was cleared for cultivation in 2002 and 8.6 million hectares of it were grown by 5.6 million farmers in 2009. But controversy has dogged India's Bt cotton, too. Civil society organisations had a long-drawn-out battles with the Indian government and Mahyco over non-disclosure of trial data to the public in the initial years and the sale of illegal Bt cotton seeds before the Indian government's clearance. Similar charges of lack of transparency dogged Bt brinjal trials. But there were other sensitivities in the Bt brinjal case. It would have been India's first GM food crop, against a backdrop of a regulatory system that doesn't inspire confidence and the absence of a labeling system for GM foods. Other unresolved issues were the impact of accidental release of pollen from GM brinjal on non-GM crops, toxicity and development of pest resistance. Although India's Genetic Engineering Approval Committee, under the Environment Ministry, cleared Bt brinjal for cultivation in October 2009, Ramesh held a series of public consultations and opted for a moratorium. In the year gone by, India's six science academies that attempted to shed light on it ended up in a sorry light. The inter-academy report concluded that Bt brinjal was safe for cultivation in India. But the document contained no references and included paragraphs from a pro-biotechnology government publication, Biotech News. Ramesh dismissed it, saying it was "not a product of rigourous scientific evaluation". The academies withdrew their report, promising to redo it, like admonished school children. In December 2010, they released an updated report with the same conclusions, but with references and PowerPoint presentations. Last month, Ramesh finally admitted to journalists that a call on Bt brinjal would have to be a "political" decision. That, to an extent, could explain why the ban has been imposed. One angry Filipino biotechnologist asked me: "Who asked the Indian government to consult farmers and NGOs about GM technology?" Well, farmers have traditional knowledge, and they can vote. As Alan Leshner, the head of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said last year at a European science forum discussing the challenges of feeding science into policy making: "Politicians are elected. Scientists are not." Some developing countries are looking to India for answers. Biotechnologists from Burkina Faso, Ghana and Malawi were in India in December to understand India's biotech progress and how it is engaging policy makers, scientists and farmers. Still, India will find its way forward, picking itself up after some stumbles and an occasional flat landing on its face. But it can also offer insights into how a developing country can democratically tackle emerging technologies that interface with society. • T V Padma writes for SciDev.Net