The Hindu Business Line : Planting transparency

The desirability of adopting genetic engineering technology and its effects on health and environment have been the subject of intense debate in many parts of the world since the time the technology was launched in the US ten years ago. While much has been said and written about agricultural biotechnology and its beneficial aspects, concerns over bio-safety have refused to go away. Yet, in major economies, the area under genetically modified crops has been expanding rapidly — cotton, corn and soyabean being prime examples. The debate over sound science (the US position) versus precautionary principle (the European stand) is far from settled, and indications are that it will continue for some years. It is in this unsettled and complex global environment that one must view the recent Supreme Court directive on a public interest petition seeking a ban on field trials of GM crops in the country.

While refusing to direct stoppage of field trials, the court has directed the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (the country's highest regulatory body) to withhold further approval for such tests. This restrained and practical approach to the controversy over research on GM crops should send a clear message to all stakeholders, including life-science companies, policymakers, farmers and the civil society represented by non-governmental organisations. Interestingly, there are NGOs at the two extremes of the spectrum — pro- and anti-GM — both refusing to take cognisance of a golden middle ground. The unstated message of the Supreme Court is clear: None shall seek to stop the march of science, and at the same time adequate precaution against adverse developments should be taken and seen to have been taken.

This translates to one simple idea: Transparency. There indeed is a general perception, rightly or otherwise, that the entire decision-making and implementation process in the matter of GM crops is far from transparent. If GM crops are produced for public consumption eventually, consumers have a right to know not only how safe the crops are, but also how scientifically they are grown and whether or not all safety protocols have been strictly adhered to. A transparent system of research through field trails or otherwise, placing research data in the public domain and demonstrating that all regulatory requirements have been complied with would help remove lurking suspicion in the minds of people

This should be seen as part of corporate social responsibility as also right to information. Agbiotech has faced and sailed through more serious threats in the form of miscreants vandalising crops under trial and the like. The policymakers are of course in the unenviable position of having to encourage agricultural research and scientific development without compromising on issues of public interest. At the same time, they are accountable for designing appropriate policies, with checks and balances, to ensure that potential risks are accurately diagnosed, and addressed. Improved testing and safety protocols must be an ongoing process.

More Stories on : Editorial | Agriculture | Bio-tech & Genetics

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
Planting transparency

Inflation and deteriorating terms of trade for agriculture

Moving from `Gandhigiri' to `Gandhivaad'

The sealed fate of company seal

Raising the standard

A `storm' that rages on in auditing

True hero of a turnaround

Gaps in GAAP

Sakthi Auto-Bonomi Belgium Ventiel