Legal Framework Around GM Crops
Legal Framework Around GM Crops
Legal Framework Around GM Crops
Second important provision is that the export commodities which have LMOs
as ingredients should be cleared labelled.
The objective of the above three provisions is to ensure that the recipient
countries have both the opportunity and the capacity to assess risks involving
the products of modern biotechnology.
http://www.gktoday.in/blog/legalframeworkaroundgmcrops/ 1/4
2/2/2017 LegalFrameworkAroundGMCropsGeneralKnowledgeToday
Contents [hide]
Since as early as 1980s, the government of India has shown an interest in the
area of farm biotechnology. To identify priority areas and to develop a long
term plant, the government established National Biotechnology Board
(NBTB). In 1986, it was transformed in Department of Biotechnology, under
the Ministry of Science and Technology. The Government research institutes
have been involved in biotech research for a variety of the crops. In our
country, the GM crops are regulated under the following:
There are committees at the district, State and Central levels, including the
Review Committee on Genetic Manipulation (RCGM), State Biotechnology
Coordination Committee (SBCC) and District Level Committee (DLC) for
handling of various aspects of the rules. GEAC is the apex body. It is the
clearing house for all GM crops in India.
http://www.gktoday.in/blog/legalframeworkaroundgmcrops/ 2/4
2/2/2017 LegalFrameworkAroundGMCropsGeneralKnowledgeToday
National Biological Diversity Act 2002 has provisions to deal with the possible
risks associated with the application of modern biotechnology. The apex body
constituted under this act is National Biodiversity Authority (NBA). As per
this act, all foreign nationals require approval from NBA for obtaining
Biological Resources. All Indian individuals/entities are required to seek NBA
approval before transferring knowledge / research and material to foreigners.
Prior approval of NBA is needed before applying for any kind of IPR based on
research conducted on biological material and or associated knowledge
obtained from India. Thus, non-citizens, non-residents, and body corporate
not registered in India or with non-Indian shareholders need NBAs approval
for accessing biological resources of India under section 3 of this act. People
in the region and communities, growers and cultivators of biodiversity, and
vaids and hakims do not need NBAs approval. On state level this act makes
provisions for state level biodiversity board.
(Mahyco) started eld trials of Bt Cotton in nine states and no one exactly
knew which authority allowed it to do so. The authority to sanction these
trials was GEAC as all transgenic crops in India require environmental
clearance under 1989 rules. However, it was reported that Mahyco proceeded
with letter of authority from RCGM and did not consult the state level
committees.
Moreover, it was never clear whether Bt Cotton was safe or not. But anyhow,
initial formal sector studies found the positive agro-economic eects of Bt
Cotton. These studies were reported in the Parliament from ocially
sanctioned eld trials of Bt cotton. The studies were conrmed by the
advocates of the Bt Cotton that it resulted in increased yield because of
superior bollworm control; bringing down cost of bollworm control and
thereby raising the net incomes of the farmers. Thus, ocial approval of Bt
Cotton was granted in March 2002, and Bt Cotton became the rst GM crop
approved in India. Mahyco became the rst Indian company to commercialize
transgenic cotton hybrids in India in 2002.
Similarly, the problems with the NBA act 2002 is that it does not say anything
on Public Institutions and many of its provisions overlap with that of
Environmental law and rules released under it.
Thanks to RTI act and Indian Judiciary which directed the government to
make public within 10 working days all the relevant data on genetically
engineered brinjal, okra, mustard and rice which have been approved for
multi-location trials. The decision established the position that if a GM food
causes allergies or contains toxins, the government cannot refuse to disclose
such bio-safety information on the grounds that it involves commercial
condence or trade secrets and that it will compromise the competitive
position of the biotech company concerned.
http://www.gktoday.in/blog/legalframeworkaroundgmcrops/ 4/4