25/03/11

Indian states clash with centre over GM trials

Two Indian states disagreed with the government on GM trials Copyright: Flickr/fturmog

By: M. Sreelata

We encourage you to republish this article online and in print, it’s free under our creative commons attribution license, but please follow some simple guidelines:

You have to credit our authors.
You have to credit SciDev.Net — where possible include our logo with a link back to the original article.
You can simply run the first few lines of the article and then add: “Read the full article on SciDev.Net” containing a link back to the original article.
If you want to also take images published in this story you will need to confirm with the original source if you're licensed to use them.
The easiest way to get the article on your site is to embed the code below.

For more information view our media page and republishing guidelines.

The full article is available here as HTML.

Press Ctrl-C to copy

<div class="article-wrap">
<div id="article-introduction">
<h1>Indian states clash with centre over GM trials</h1>
<h4>By: M. Sreelata</h4>
</div>
<br />
<br />

<div id="article-body">
<p><span>[NEW DELHI] India’s central and state governments are increasingly at odds over technical clearance for conducting trials on genetically modified (GM) crops, indicating anomalies in procedures for trials and field studies in the country’s federal structure. </span></p>
<p><span>This month (March), the chief minister of the northern state of Bihar objected to field trials of GM maize, developed by the Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Company, in which the biotech major Monsanto has a 26 per cent stake. The trials have since been suspended, and MAHYCO officially declined to comment.<br />
</span></p>
<p><span>India’s minister for environment and forests, Jairam Ramesh, said his ministry would investigate how the trials were held without keeping the states in the picture, indicating there was a disconnect. </span></p>
<p><span>The spat follows a similar one in January between Ramesh’s ministry and the southern state of Kerala that objected to field trials for GM rubber.</span></p>
<p>According to GEAC officials, a rule <span>under the Environment Protection Act pertaining to permitting trials of GM seeds has laid down procedures and assigned the task of coordination between states and centre to specific committees. They declined to comment on what went wrong in the two cases.</span></p>
<p><span>Suman Sahai, convenor of the Delhi-based non-governmental organisation Gene Campaign, said the Cartagena Protocol on biosafety, which India has ratified, clearly says that communities and states should be consulted.   </span></p>
<p><span>"However the country’s biotechnology policy lays emphasis only on promoting GM seeds without talking of assessing the need for the technology from farmers themselves," Sahai said. </span></p>
<p><span>Also, while committees under India’s department of biotechnology (DBT) give technical clearance for trials, the DBT, as well as India’s agriculture and environment ministries, are involved in consultations with the states as it is a "political issue" too, she said. </span></p>
<p><span>Bhaskar Goswami, agriculture and trade policy analyst with the non-governmental organisation Forum for Biotechnology and Food Security, says that in India’s federal structure the states "have a right to refuse permission as land and agriculture are both state subjects".    <br />
</span></p>
<p><span>Ramesh’s ministry has demanded an explanation from the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) on how technical clearances were given for the GM maize trials.</span></p>
<p><span>Pushpa Bhargava, a top molecular biologist appointed as an independent external observer by India’s Supreme Court to the GEAC, told <em>SciDev.Net</em> that existing rules are "silent on taking the permission of the states and merely give the states the onus of monitoring the trials. How can states monitor trials they have not permitted?"   </span></p>
<div>Bhargava said the rules need to be amended so as to include provisions for taking the approval of states before trials begin.</div>

</div>
<div class="quick-links-wrapper">
<h3>You might also like</h3>
[related-articles]
</div>
<p>This article was originally published on <a href="https://www.scidev.net" target="_blank">SciDev.Net</a>. Read the <a href="https://www.scidev.net/global/news/indian-states-clash-with-centre-over-gm-trials-1/" target="_blank">original article</a>.</p>
<script type="text/javascript">
(function(e,t,n,r,i,s,o){e["GoogleAnalyticsObject"]=i;e[i]=e[i]||function(){(e[i].q=e[i].q||[]).push(arguments)},e[i].l=1*new Date;s=t.createElement(n),o=t.getElementsByTagName(n)[0];s.async=1;s.src=r;o.parentNode.insertBefore(s,o)})(window,document,"script","//www.google-analytics.com/ga.js","ga");var _gaq=_gaq||[];var _gaq=_gaq||[];_gaq.push(["_setAccount","UA-3223906-8"],["_trackEvent","article interaction","republished","https://www.scidev.net/global/news/indian-states-clash-with-centre-over-gm-trials-1/",null,true])
</script>
</div>

[NEW DELHI] India’s central and state governments are increasingly at odds over technical clearance for conducting trials on genetically modified (GM) crops, indicating anomalies in procedures for trials and field studies in the country’s federal structure.

This month (March), the chief minister of the northern state of Bihar objected to field trials of GM maize, developed by the Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Company, in which the biotech major Monsanto has a 26 per cent stake. The trials have since been suspended, and MAHYCO officially declined to comment.

India’s minister for environment and forests, Jairam Ramesh, said his ministry would investigate how the trials were held without keeping the states in the picture, indicating there was a disconnect.

The spat follows a similar one in January between Ramesh’s ministry and the southern state of Kerala that objected to field trials for GM rubber.

According to GEAC officials, a rule under the Environment Protection Act pertaining to permitting trials of GM seeds has laid down procedures and assigned the task of coordination between states and centre to specific committees. They declined to comment on what went wrong in the two cases.

Suman Sahai, convenor of the Delhi-based non-governmental organisation Gene Campaign, said the Cartagena Protocol on biosafety, which India has ratified, clearly says that communities and states should be consulted.

"However the country’s biotechnology policy lays emphasis only on promoting GM seeds without talking of assessing the need for the technology from farmers themselves," Sahai said.

Also, while committees under India’s department of biotechnology (DBT) give technical clearance for trials, the DBT, as well as India’s agriculture and environment ministries, are involved in consultations with the states as it is a "political issue" too, she said.

Bhaskar Goswami, agriculture and trade policy analyst with the non-governmental organisation Forum for Biotechnology and Food Security, says that in India’s federal structure the states "have a right to refuse permission as land and agriculture are both state subjects".

Ramesh’s ministry has demanded an explanation from the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) on how technical clearances were given for the GM maize trials.

Pushpa Bhargava, a top molecular biologist appointed as an independent external observer by India’s Supreme Court to the GEAC, told SciDev.Net that existing rules are "silent on taking the permission of the states and merely give the states the onus of monitoring the trials. How can states monitor trials they have not permitted?"

Bhargava said the rules need to be amended so as to include provisions for taking the approval of states before trials begin.