Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Editor’s Note: On 23 January 2003, India ratified the Cartagena Protocol which
protects biodiversity from potential risks of genetically modified organisms. Currently,
the Genetic Engineering Approvals Committee, a body under the Ministry of
Environment and Forests is responsible for approval of genetically engineered products
in India. However, a bill has been proposed for the regulation of modern biotechnology
in the country. It is the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India Bill (BRAI Bill) 2013
which has been tabled in Lok Sabha by the Minister for Science and Technology, Mr
Jaipal Reddy. If the bill is passed, the responsibility will be taken over by the
Environment Appraisal Panel, a sub-division of the BRAI. In this paper the author has
presented the various aspects and effects of the proposed bill.
INTRODUCTION
The controversy around genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in our food and farming
rages on with claims and counterclaims emerging constantly. India is a party to the
Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992 and ratified the Cartagena Protocol on Bio
safety which protects biodiversity from potential risks of GMOs, the products of modern
biotechnology on 23 January 2003[i]. The protocol requires setting up of a regulatory
body. India does not have an express statute unlike many other countries, to regulate
transgenics in our food and farming. It uses the 1989 Rules of the Environment
Protection Act (1986). Currently, the Genetic Engineering Approvals Committee, a body
under the Ministry of Environment and Forests is responsible for approval of genetically
engineered products in India. The regulatory regime created using these rules has
proven itself to be unscientific, biased, opaque, undemocratic and incapable in a variety
of ways time and time again. Conflicting interests prevail where GM crop developers are
an integral part of decision-making. Violations of the Rules, guidelines, orders and
norms are violated regularly without any liability fixed so far. The Bt brinjal moratorium
decision[ii] is a classic illustration of what is wrong with the current regulatory regime. A
statute is being proposed to be enacted for regulation of modern biotechnology in the
country and a Bill to this effect, called the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India
Bill (BRAI Bill) 2013 has been tabled in Lok Sabha by the Minister for Science and
Technology, Mr Jaipal Reddy, on April 22nd 2013. If the bill is passed, the responsibility
will be taken over by the Environment Appraisal Panel, a sub-division of the BRAI.
The public discussion regarding the bill that ensued was completely one-sided,
as it was done by an organization called the Biotechnology Consortium of India, which
had been created explicitly for the popularization of biotechnology in India. As a result,
the views of different peoples’ organizations, scientists, farmers or consumers were not
considered. Since then, Monsanto has made great progress in the marketing of Bt-
Brinjal, which would be their first GM food crop, and the second GM crop, in India. The
initial applied research was carried out in the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University,
Coimbatore, with funding from Monsanto/Mahyco. While this was going on, on 8th
February 2009, eighteen reputed scientists from all around the world wrote an open
letter to the Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh stating reasons why GM crops and
food should not be introduced in India. Many agronomists, environmentalists, scientists
from various fields, farmer’s bodies and even some state governments also voiced their
opposition to the introduction of Bt-brinjal. But even on the face of this opposition, the
GEAC approved the commercialization of Bt-Brinjal on 14th October 2009. This
approval was based on the report of an expert committee established by the GEAC. As
soon as the committee was established, it was noticed that of its 16 members, at least
five were directly linked to Monsanto or were conducting research based on grants from
Monsanto/Mahyco. At that time, many organizations voiced their protests about this
composition of the Expert Committee (EC). But these protests were ignored, and EC
recommended the clearance to Bt-brinjal disregarding the absence of clear data about
tests done on it and on its potential effect on human and animal health. The storm of
protest that rose around the country as a result of this blatant act forced union
environment and forests minister Jairam Ramesh to hold public hearings in eleven cities
across the country. Pressured by the opinions expressed in these meetings, and
outside, by environmentalists, scientists, farmers and agricultural scientists and a large
cross-section of the public, Jairam Ramesh introduced a two-year moratorium on the
commercialization of Bt Brinjal. Soon after that, sections of the central government
bureacracy, various chambers of commerce and industry, a section of scientists and the
corporate media became vocal against this moratorium. These very same influential
groups started to create pressure on the central government to promulgate a law so that
the control over commercialization of biotechnology products would be transferred from
the MOEF to the DST. The influence of the corporate and technocratic bodies over the
DST has always been great and the latter has supported the commercialization of GM
food crops from the very beginning. The dream legislation of these corporations is the
Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) Act, which is the new avatar of the
original act proposed in 2008[iv].
In 2011, when the Jan Lokpal movement led by Anna Hazare rocked
Parliament, the Prime Minister’s Office again tried unsuccessfully to push the BRAI bill
in a bid to replace the GEAC, the 31-member apex regulatory body with representation
from several ministries, with a three-member regulator offering all GM products single-
window clearance The next jolt was the August 2012 report of the Parliamentary
Standing Committee on Agriculture that consulted all stakeholders and examined the
BRAI Bill against the standard regulatory frameworks elsewhere in the world. It
observed that “regulating biotechnology is too small a focus in the vast canvas of
biodiversity, environment, human and livestock health, etc and a multitude of other such
related issues”. The panel recommended “setting up of an all-encompassing Bio-safety
Authority through an Act of Parliament, which is extensively discussed and debated
amongst all stakeholders, before acquiring shape of the law”, adding that “unless and
until such an authority is in place, any further movement in regard to transgenics in
agriculture crops will obviously be fraught with unknown consequences”[v]. Again on
April 22nd 2013, the BRAI Bill was introduced in Lok Sabha by the Minister for Science
& Technology, Government of India.
BRAI will certify that the product developed is safe for its intended use. All other
laws governing the product will continue to apply.
A Biotechnology Regulatory Appellate Tribunal will hear civil cases that involve a
substantial question relating to modern biotechnology and hear appeals on the
decisions and orders of BRAI.
It is worth noting that at the time when the new BRAI draft act was published in 2009,
unknown to the Parliament, an US-India memorandum-of-understanding (MOU) related
to “cooperation in agriculture and food security” was signed during the visit of the US
foreign secretary Hillary Clinton to India. The objective of the MOU was to increase US
investment in the Indian food and agriculture sector. Under the guise of “cooperation in
agriculture”, this MOU opened the door for privatization of the agricultural research
system and flooding the Indian food market with GM food crops under “food security”. It
is easily understandable that the passing of the BRAI bill is intimately linked with the
interests of US imperialism in India and with the interests of the multinational
corporations, whose interests are served by US imperialism[xviii].
CONCLUSION
The BRAI bill would do no good if it comes into force in its present structure. If it is
passed by the government as it is, then Bt Brinjal, Bt Rice and some 40-odd food crops
would be at risk. The bill attacks the very constitutional rights of the citizens, including
their right to information, their right to choose, even their right to seek redressal under
court. The bill envisages a limited role for the state government. The choice of safe food
along with the right to ask for it would be crushed underneath the multinational giants,
who would then take over the agricultural sector of this country. The farmers would be
left at their mercy and very soon out country would witness another advent of mass
suicides by farmers if this bill comes into force. The legislation should be made to
enhance biosafety and ensure democracy in the country and not otherwise.
[iii] Leo Saldhana and Bhargavi Rao, Environment Support Group, “Creating An
Undemocratic And Unaccountable Biotechnology Regulator”, November 2011,
Website: www.esgindia.org (accessed on 22.08.2014).
[iv] Partho Sarathi Ray, Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India Act: The New
Weapon of the Second Green Revolution January 16, 2012, available at sanhati.com
(accessed on 18.08.2014).
[v] Vishwanath Kulkarni, Bill on independent regulator for biotech sector introduced in
Lok Sabha, published on April 22, 2013, available at www.thehindubusinessline.com
(accessed on 18.08.2014).
[ix] Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India Bill, 2013 (BRAI): “Wrong Bill by the
wrong people, for the wrong reasons” – a critique by the Coalition for a GM-Free India,
available at indiagminfo.org (accessed on 22.08.2014).
[xi] Amitmitra, Scrap biotech regulatory bill, says farmers’ body, published on June 17,
2013, available at www.thehindubusinessline.com (accessed on 18.08.2014).
[xii] Bill Summary, The Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India Bill, 2013, available
at www.prsindia.org (accessed on 18.08.2014).
[xiv] Section 7(1) of the bill provides the member of the Selection Committee for the
Chairperson and the Members of the BRAI and includes the secretary-in-charge of the
DBT and according to Section 7(2) a scientist from the same department is required to
convene the meetings of the selection committee. So, the BRAI would often have to
consider applications with which the Ministry of Science and Technology and the DBT is
either directly or indirectly associated with. Therefore, the decision making of BRAI,
irrespective of whether there has been any actual instance of bias, would be viewed
with the apprehension of bias.
[xv] Have an effect, especially a negative one, available at www.oxfordictionaries.com
(accessed on 19.09.2014).
[xvii] Union of India vs. R. Gandhi, Madras Bar Association, (2010) 6 SCR 857.