Skip Navigation

Latin America & Caribbean

News

  • Print
  • Comment
  • | Share

Furore over silencing clause in Indian biotech bill

T. V. Padma

24 February 2010 | EN | 中文

Greenpeace campaigners against GM eggplant

Protesting against GM eggplant: could such campaigners face jail?

Flickr/ greenpeacevolunteersmumbai

[NEW DELHI] Scientists and environmentalists are furious at a clause in India's draft bill to form a new biotechnology regulatory authority that they say stifles opposition to genetically modified (GM) products.

The bill seeks to establish a Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) to replace the environment ministry's Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC).

The BRAI will "regulate the research, transport, import, manufacture and use of organisms and products of modern biotechnology" to promote its safe use.

The draft bill is awaiting introduction into parliament and may be discussed in the parliamentary session that began this week. 

The Department of Biotechnology (DBT) had thrown open initial drafts for a series of public consultations since 2008.

But the latest version, which was produced last year and not introduced into the public domain, contains a clause to the effect that people who criticise a GM product without sufficient scientific proof could face penalties including a fine and jail.

According to article 63 of the proposed law, "whoever, without any evidence or scientific record, misleads the public about the safety of the organisms and products ... shall be punished with imprisonment for a term … and with a fine … or with both".

"Never in India's history has such a draconian provision been mooted," Pushpa Mohan Bhargava, founder and former director of the Hyderabad-based Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, told SciDev.Net. "Who is to decide what evidence is scientific or not? It will gag any opposition or criticism."

Another controversial new article, 81, indicates that decisions made down at the state level can be overridden.

Environmentalist Vandana Shiva, a staunch critic of genetic engineering technology, hit out publicly at articles 63 and 81 yesterday (23 February), describing them as unconstitutional.

Shiva said that the constitution guarantees freedom of speech and lists agriculture as a "state" subject, meaning that each state has the right to decide on its agricultural policy.  

Another clause causing concern, article 27, suggests that the BRAI could override India's Right to Information Act, which mandates citizens' right to obtain information from the government.

It says that confidential commercial information "notwithstanding anything contained in the Right to Information Act, 2005, can be retained as confidential by the Authority and not be disclosed to any other party".

The problem, said Suman Sahai, convenor of the nongovernmental organisation Gene Campaign, is that the draft bill does not clearly define "confidential commercial information". Only the innovation component of GM research should remain confidential, she said, not information related to health or environmental safety.

The controversy has erupted soon after India's decision to halt the cultivation of GM eggplant (brinjal) despite clearance by GEAC (see India says no — for now — to first GM vegetable).

Comments (4)

ironjustice ( Canada )

24 February 2010

I guess then it is time for a BLANKET BOYCOTT OF ALL GM PRODUCTS.
This INCLUDES the soybean grown with reduced alpha-linolenic acid.
Alpha-linolenic acid has been shown to be THE most important of ALL the vegetable fatty acids as it is able to become ALL fatty acids required by the body.
Biotechnology has removed this.
9 Dec 2009 ... Soybean oil containing reduced levels of linolenic acid

Marcos Freire ( Mozambique )

1 March 2010

In my opinion they should also add that any promotion activity without adequate level of scientific evidence should be prohibited and dully prosecuted and have heavy penalties (fines and jail). Any unexpected effects would come under this point (it would assume not enough research and/or scientific evidence).

orion ( France )

6 March 2010

It is quite understandable that authorities, facing enormous needs of food, are eager to impulse the use of OGM, owing to the advantages that they bring. History show that a big change in agricultural uses is never easily accepted : time and some diplomacy are necessary

orion ( France )

7 March 2010

It may be understood that authorities, facing important poverties and needs of food, press for rapid introduction of GM, owing to their important advantages. History shows that diplomacy and discussions and time are necessary for the acceptation of such drastic changes.

Add your comment

This is your network: share your views on any of our articles by adding your comments.

You need to be signed in to post a comment or to email a consenting comment author. Please sign in or sign up.

All comments are subject to approval and we reserve the right to edit comments containing inappropriate/unsuitable language. SciDev.Net holds copyright for all material posted on the website. Please see terms of use for further details.

All SciDev.Net material is free to reproduce providing that the source and author are appropriately credited. For further details see Creative Commons.

Back to News
To the top