Centre makes U-turn on GM mustard

In a move that could pave the way for farmers to grow genetically modified (GM) mustard in the country, the Centre sought to withdraw the oral undertaking given to the Supreme Court last year that it would maintain status quo and would not initiate commercial cultivation of GM mustard without the court’s approval.
In a fresh application filed before the top court, the government contended that the oral undertaking was given on November 3 as the final hearing in the case was supposed to begin soon which did not take place and the case was still pending in court.
“Indigenous development of transgenic varieties through the male sterility or restorer system is a critical element in ensuring India’s future food security as this technology will be utilised to produce new hybrids with higher yields in future, thereby increasing agricultural output and farmer income. The huge policy implications involved deserve early resolution. In the meanwhile, the process sanctioned under the conditional approval dated October 2022 must continue and arrive at its conclusions,” the application said in what potentially marked the government’s determination to defy the resistance to rollout of genetically modified crops by activists and others.
If the court agrees to the Centre’s point, the process to allow commercial cultivation of GM mustard will get fast-tracked as the central biotech reOnce seeds are produced in adequate quantity during the upcoming season, farmers will be able to cultivate GM mustard commercially as early as from next season in 2024. The Centre said in its application, “The second growing season under the conditional approval granted by the government of India is also approaching in the months of September and October of 2023. Therefore, this court may consider discharging the Union of India from the oral statement made on November 3 which was made in a specific context for a limited purpose at the relevant time as explained.”
As the application was filed on other day and was not served to the opposite parties which sought one week’s time to respond, a bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan deferred the hearing.
Observing that literacy and awareness levels among Indian farmers were not at the level of their counterparts in western countries, the SC had said in January that all precautionary measures must be taken before allowing cultivation of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant mustard crop and asked the Centre whether there was any “compelling reason” to permit it now.gulator, Genetically Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC), has already given its conditional nod for “environmental release” of transgenic mustard (DMH-11) for seed production and testing. If allowed, GM mustard will be the second transgenic crop after Bt cotton to be cultivated in India.
Once seeds are produced in adequate quantity during the upcoming season, farmers will be able to cultivate GM mustard commercially as early as from next season in 2024. The Centre said in its application, “The second growing season under the conditional approval granted by the government of India is also approaching in the months of September and October of 2023. Therefore, this court may consider discharging the Union of India from the oral statement made on November 3 which was made in a specific context for a limited purpose at the relevant time as explained.”
As the application was filed on other day and was not served to the opposite parties which sought one week’s time to respond, a bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan deferred the hearing.
Observing that literacy and awareness levels among Indian farmers were not at the level of their counterparts in western countries, the SC had said in January that all precautionary measures must be taken before allowing cultivation of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant mustard crop and asked the Centre whether there was any “compelling reason” to permit it now.
The attorney general had replied, “It is not a question of compulsion but the process. If there is nothing problematic in the whole process which took 10-12 years, then there is nothing wrong in the decision taken by the government.”
Source: Indiatimes