The debate around Bt Brinjal has only grown louder after Jairam Ramesh’s recent decision to hold back its commercial release until “independent” tests establish its safety. But a lot of the brouhaha clouds certain critical details. Here are a few questions, along with their answers, that will hopefully dispel some doubts. 

Why can’t we trust the government regulator? 

One of the cornerstones of the criticism of Jairam Ramesh is that the minister had no right to overrule a government and scientific regulator – the Genetic Engineering Approvals Committee (GEAC). If this scientific regulator had cleared Bt Brinjal nine years after work began on it in the lab and after several tests, what was the need for Ramesh to butt in? A close reading of the complaints raised by civil society groups shows how this regulator is riddled with several conflicts of interest and other problems. 

That’s the reason why the Supreme Court appointed an observer to the GEAC, P.M. Bhargava, who remains dissatisfied with its functioning even today. As per one of his declarations, R. Arjula Reddy, the chairman of the second GEAC expert committee, had confided in him that he was under “tremendous pressure” from the “agriculture minister, GEAC and industry” to clear Bt Brinjal and that Mahyco had not carried out eight essential tests on Bt Brinjal. There’s more. The first GEAC expert committee had recommended several tests but a third of them were later overruled by the second expert committee (funnily enough a third of its members were the same as in the first). 

There is even a FIR registered against the member secretary of RCGM (Review Committee on Genetic Manipulation)– also a complaint with the Central Vigilance Commission – by Hyderabad-based Nuziveedu Seeds, which deals in Bt Cotton, pointing out how the said official has been using undue discretionary powers to promote interests of Mahyco at the cost of others. All these instances show that the GEAC is not beyond reproach. Certainly not that of the minister of environment and forests, under whose ministry the GEAC functions. 

Isn’t this decision bad for science in India? 

What science are we talking about here? All that the Indian scientists did was to buy the Bt gene kit and replicate it in the eggplant. Is that the kind of science we want to emulate? The technology was developed by Monsanto in the US and for which they get a generous royalty from all those who use their creation. Why do you think we haven’t heard much of GM varieties other than the Bt kinds in India? That’s because it is the most difficult bit of GM science and Indian scientists are content using technology developed elsewhere. Also because most of the funding that comes in from private players and foreign institutions – many of them American – further research that serve their interests. 

Real science would be to indigenously identify genes for desired traits and then use them in our crops. Unfortunately, our scientists are a long, long way from getting there. Ramesh’s argument for more state involvement in developing seeds is very pertinent. Therefore, the critique that this decision deals a blow to science is all humbug. Hopefully, if anything, this decision will deal a blow to the growing trend of ‘copycat science’ in India. 

Do we really need Bt Brinjal? 

That’s one fundamental question that hasn’t been answered yet. The central argument for Bt Brinjal is that it would cut the use of lethal pesticides that is necessary to kill the shoot and fruit borer. But close to 6 lakh farmers in Andhra Pradesh, as quoted by minister Jairam Ramesh in his statement, have demonstrated how they have contained the pest without pesticides. Why can’t we replicate this elsewhere? Also, it has now emerged that an independent socio-economic study to determine whether Indian farmers needed Bt brinjal was never carried out despite recommendations for such a study. 

Is Bt Brinjal about food security? 

The truth is that Bt Brinjal is not about food security. Brinjal has never been scarce in the market and it continues to be one of the cheapest vegetables on the cart of my vegetable vendor. The Bt variety is more of a trial balloon to see how Indians take to genetically modified food before bringing in the real moneymakers. The interest lies in launching Mahyco’s Bt rice and wheat (both are on the way) – two crops that are part of the Indian staple diet. But that too is not about ensuring food security. Those campaigning for enhancing food security would rather focus on reducing post-harvest waste in the state’s granaries. As per a RTI reply in 2008, more than 1,300,000 tonnes of food grain were wasted in the last 10 years in the granaries of Food Corporation of India. That could have fed over one crore people for a year or over 6 lakh individuals across the span of a decade.

Is there any American role in promoting Bt products in India? 

I doubt Uncle Sam is browbeating us into adopting GM. What is more likely is that subtler and more sophisticated campaigns are being run by the Americans to convince power-wielders and scientists in India of the efficacy and reliability of GM technology. The Indo-US Knowledge Initiative in Agriculture, signed around the same time as the nuclear deal, is one such forum to promote the use of biotechnology and further American agricultural interests in India. It has representatives from Monsanto and Wal-Mart on its board. 

And is it a coincidence that Nina Fedoroff, the adviser to Hillary Clinton on science and technology and a known GM promoter, was in town just before Jairam Ramesh was expected to announce his decision? Maybe it just seems that two plus two is four. She is also an acting administrator to USAID that has funded the introduction of genetically modified food in India. The US Embassy in New Delhi has rubbished any such claims and clouded it with a statement that she was here on “an invitation from the Indian scientific community”. Before coming to India, she was in the news last month for her remarks made in New Zealand, a country that staunchly opposes GM crops. She called the anti-GM arguments “tragically bad”. Let’s put it this way: The Americans wouldn’t have been followed the GM debate in India as closely as they are now had the Bt technology been purely Indian. 

What about a consumer’s choice not to eat Bt Brinjal? 

Libertarians, who deride Bt-Brinjal opposers as Luddites, fail to acknowledge the fundamental right of choice. What about those who do not wish to eat Bt Brinjal, whatever their reasons may be? Why must all bow at the altar of ‘science’? Isn’t this tantamount to a dictatorship of scientists? If Bt Brinjal is released today, there is no way to tell if the brinjal one buys is genetically modified or not. So until there is reliable GM labelling and segregation of food products in place in India, Bt Brinjal (even if it is safe) must be kept off the market shelves. It’s about respecting a person’s choice.