X: @vivekbhavsar
New Delhi: In a strongly worded letter to the Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change (MoEFCC), the Coalition for a GM-Free India has raised serious concerns regarding the government’s proposed amendments to the 1989 Rules under the Environment Protection Act, 1986. The letter, addressed to the Secretary of the Ministry, points out that the amendments fail to adequately address conflicts of interest in the regulatory framework for genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
The coalition, which comprises farmers, consumers, technical experts, and activists, asserts that the proposed changes dilute the Supreme Court’s directive from July 23, 2024, which mandated stringent measures to ensure impartiality in decision-making related to GMOs. The group argues that the draft amendments fall short of the required transparency and accountability in appointing experts and decision-makers within regulatory bodies.
Key Objections to the Draft Amendments included
1. Inadequate Conflict of Interest Safeguards: The coalition criticises the amendments for failing to prevent GM crop developers from being part of regulatory committees. It highlights that scientists and officials directly involved in GMO research and development should not be allowed to participate in regulatory decision-making, as this constitutes a clear conflict of interest.
2. Narrow Interpretation of Conflict of Interest: The group argues that the proposed amendments limit conflict of interest to specific agenda items rather than considering the broader influence that experts with vested interests might have on policy and regulatory decisions. They insist that anyone involved in GM research or associated institutions should be permanently excluded from regulatory bodies.
3. Lack of Transparency in Appointments: The coalition demands that all experts appointed to regulatory committees disclose their affiliations, funding sources, and past work history. They suggest that expert profiles be published on the ministry’s website before their appointment so that the public can raise objections if necessary.
4. Institutional Conflicts of Interest Ignored: The letter points out that institutions like the Department of Biotechnology (DBT) and the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), which fund GM research, should not have a say in the approval process for GM crops. The coalition argues that such institutions have an inherent bias in favour of promoting GM technology, making their participation a direct conflict of interest.
5. No Cooling-Off Period for Experts : The coalition recommends a mandatory five-year cooling-off period for any expert who has worked on GM research before they can join regulatory bodies. This measure, they argue, is crucial to prevent regulatory capture by industry interests.
6. Failure to Ensure Public Participation: The coalition also criticises the lack of mechanisms for public oversight. They demand that members of the public should be allowed to report potential conflicts of interest, which should then be verified and acted upon by the ministry.
The coalition points out past instances where regulatory bodies in India have been influenced by pro-GM lobbies, including cases where expert committees were directly funded by GM-promoting organisations. They cite the controversial approval process of Delhi University’s genetically modified mustard (DMH-11) as an example, where regulatory oversight was compromised due to institutional conflicts of interest.
The letter concludes with a firm demand that the MoEFCC withdraw its current draft amendments and issue a revised version that fully incorporates safeguards against conflicts of interest. The coalition warns that failing to do so will erode public trust in the regulatory process and expose India’s food and farming systems to the risks of unregulated gene technologies.
As the deadline for public comments on the draft amendments approaches, the ball is now in the government’s court. Will MoEFCC take these concerns into account, or will the regulatory framework for GMOs continue to favour industry interests over public safety and transparency?
