Scientists and activists are asking it to find out why the crop’s use was okayed by the genetic engineering approval committee (GEAC).
After the Centre put on hold the commercial use of Bt Brinjal due to lack of scientific research, scientists and activists are asking it to find out why the crop’s use was okayed by the genetic engineering approval committee (GEAC).
“There is a need to recast the review mechanism on genetically modified (GM) crop and research, and not just do a post-mortem of the GEAC,” said Kavitha Kuruganti of Kheti Virasat Mission (KVM).
“We know there was conflict of interest as some GEAC members were growing GM crops in the country.”
The GEAC had approved the commercial use of Bt Brinjal on October 15 last year. After that, it took the environment ministry 84 days to complete public discussions and reach a decision.
“The advisory committee had set up an expert panel, and the committee’s decision was based on the recommendations of this panel,” said Kanchi Kohli of Kalpavriksha, an NGO. The panel had Mathura Rai, director, Indian Institute of Vegetable Research, and Ananda Kumar from the Indian Agricultural Research Institute, who has grown Bt Brinjal. These cases are being shown as ‘conflict of interest’, even though everybody knew the specialisations of these panel members at the time of their selection.”
Meanwhile, Mahyco, the seed company which has developed the current variety of Bt Brinjal, said it was following the directions of the Centre’s department of biotechnology and GEAC. “We are confident that sound science, based on evidence obtained over nine years of rigorous testing, will prevail and the country’s farmers, consumers and the environment will benefit from agriculture biotechnology,” MK Sharma, general manager of Mahyco, said.
Activists who had been opposing the introduction of Bt Brinjal asked the government why it is not taking a tough stand on the way GEAC has functioned. “The government has decided it does not want to do a post-mortem of GEAC. It has said that it is incumbent upon us [govt], as an accountable and transparent administration, to respond to these concerns,” said the Environment Support Group.
“The government should answer whether the approval given by GEAC was in line with standards of public accountability and statutory compliance as required by law,” the group said.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}