No BRAI Bill, please

Over 2000 farmers and representatives of farmer unions, 18 MPs and numerous civil society representatives gathered in New Delhi on August 8 to call for a scrapping of the proposed Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India Bill, recently tabled by the Ministry of Science and Technology (MoST).

The present regulation of genetically modified (GM) crops has faced criticism from many quarters. In July, the Technical Expert Committee (TEC) appointed by the Supreme Court of India in a PIL came down heavily upon the current regulatory mechanism and advised against any further field trials until the serious lapses were rectified.

Last year, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Agriculture (PSCA) found that while India is a signatory to a number of international agreements with respect to the protection of biodiversity and ensuring health and environmental safety from GMOs (genetically modified organisms), the necessary scientific expertise, infrastructure and manpower for ensuring compliance has not been put into place. Appalled, the PSCA called for an all-encompassing umbrella legislation on bio-safety which focuses on ensuring biodiversity, human and livestock health, and environmental protection.

Conflict of interest

The BRAI Bill is seen as a quick one-stop clearing house to benefit GM corporations as a committee of just five scientists will be empowered to clear their patented technology for use in the whole country, contrary to the unanimous concerns of the PSCA and the well-reasoned, science-based recommendations of the TEC.

The Bill has a mandate to promote biotechnology in the country. The PSCA as well as the TEC state explicitly the need to remove conflict of interest from the regulatory body.

The TEC recommends that the regulatory body be located in the MoEF and the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. The BRAI under the MoST will clearly result in a conflict of interest.

Recently, the Coalition for a GM-Free India published a book containing abstracts of more than 400 scientific studies detailing the adverse impacts of GM crops on health and environment.

Liability and redressal

While the Bill specifies offences and penalties, there is a need to integrate the principle of ‘absolute liability’ and the ‘polluters pay principle’, as penalties laid down are too weak to deter violations. A special legislation needs to be enacted in respect of liability and redress for damage from GMOs.

One of the reasons for the moratorium on Bt brinjal in 2010 was opposition from 10 State governments. Under the Constitution, agriculture is a state subject. However the Bill seeks to override the authority of State governments.

The BRAI Bill also goes against the 73{+r}{+d} and 74{+t}{+h} amendment which focus on decentralisation of power and responsibilities to panchayats so as “to enable them to function as institutions of self-government”.

The Eleventh Schedule (Article 243G) as introduced by the amendment, gives a detailed list of functions to be performed by PRIs (Panchayati Raj institutions). The very first point specifies ‘Agriculture, including agricultural extension’. The BRAI bypasses them, violating the letter and spirit of the Constitution.

It is thus evident that the BRAI Bill is regressive in nature, and falls short on a number of fronts. It neither conforms to international agreements and protocols, nor does it include fundamentally important recommendations made by the TEC and the PSCA.

For this reason the Bill needs to be withdrawn, and an all-encompassing bio-safety legislation needs to be drawn up.

(The author is a researcher at the LEAF Initiative which focuses on issues relating to livelihood, environment, agriculture and food.)

COMMENT NOW