Science must shape policy

In approving GM crops, a data-backed and transparent process will help resolve doubts

There are few issues as fractious as transgenic crops, especially in India. One group of scientists and officials believes that genetically modified (GM) seeds are essential to align agriculture with technology and harness the power of science to improve yields, cut down losses and build more resilient varieties, especially against the backdrop of the climate crisis. Another group says the benefits of GM products are uneven, and they can cause irreparable damage to soil and crop diversity, ecology and food security. Decisions on regulation, approval, manufacture and market introduction of GM products, therefore, should be dictated by evidence-based policy, science and data – as must be the case in deciding on any issue that’s deeply emotive, has wider socioeconomic ramifications, and tends to corral people into ideologically inclined camps. This debate was pushed to the fore this week after India’s biotech regulator, the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC), approved GM mustard for commercial cultivation, paving the way for the country’s first transgenic food crop.

Technically known as Dhara Mustard Hybrid-11 (DMH-11), GM mustard had a long gestation period of 15 years. Since mustard is self-pollinating, scientists used a breeding technique to remove male fertility in one parent and modifying the other to ensure that the offspring was not sterile. The offspring, scientists said, could dramatically improve yields. The decision is now up to the government to clear it, though it may take up to two years for the seed to be commercially available. Advocates of transgenic crops argue that GM mustard can help slash a burgeoning import bill – India imports around 60% of its edible oil demand and the bill came in at $19 billion last year – and help cool inflation at a time international supply chains are reeling from the impact of the pandemic and the conflict in Ukraine. As mustard corners roughly a third of the edible oil pie, rising crop yield can only help bolster food security.

These are good arguments, and the need to plug scientific advancements into agriculture and expand cultivators’ access to technology are undeniable. Yet, questions linger. In 2017, GEAC initially approved GM mustard for environmental release, but later changed its recommendation; the next year, it asked for field studies at two or three locations to understand the impact of the crop on honeybees and other pollinators, and on soil microbial diversity. It remains unclear whether these field trials were done. In its approval, the regulator asked for field demonstration studies to study the impact on honeybees and other pollinators after its environmental release, but concerns about monoculture may render some of these findings ineffectual. The inventors argue that countries growing GE rapeseed – a sister crop that uses the same technique as GM mustard – such as Canada, the

United States and Australia reported no adverse impact on soil, pollinators or health. This was backed by biosafety studies done by the Indian Council of Agriculture Research and Centre for Genetic Manipulation of Crop Plants, which submitted the proposal, leading the regulator to conclude it “seemed likely” that there were no major deviations in the behaviour of honeybees. But in issues as important as this, there can be no alternative to evidence-based policy. Using technology to modernise agriculture is crucial, but this must be guided by a scientific and transparent process. The regulator would do well to put more data out in the public domain.