The biotech industry has appealed to the Supreme Court to vacate its ban order on fresh approval of genetically modified (GM) crops. A three-member bench headed by Chief Justice KG Balakrishnan is slated to hear the industry’s petition on May 8. The apex court, in the course of its hearing of a public interest litigation filed by Aruna Rodrigues, PV Satheesh and others on September 22, 2006, had directed the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) not to clear any GM crop for fresh field trials. Earlier on May 1, 2006, it had also said the GEAC and not the Review Committee for Genetic Manipulation (RCGM) under the department of biotechnology should be responsible for field trials and approval of GM crops.

Scientists are working on identification of genes resistant to diseases like pathogenic bird flu to implant these into poultry but it may take six to seven years before it is fully developed. ”It is going to take at least 6 to 7 years for developing totally disease resistant chicken. As of now we have initiated efforts for its which would take about three years and then these genes would be transferred into developing disease resistant chicken which may again take couple of years,” a senior scientist of UP-based Central Avian Research Institute told PTI. [...] Kumar, who was here to participate in a symposium on Poultry Production, said adding we could focus on transferring these genes into high producing chickens.

Opposition from various non-government organisations notwithstanding, the area under genetically modified (GM) crops is increasing rapidly in the country. [...] Asked about reports that genetically modified crops created health problems like skin diseases, he said there was no such report from any part of the cotton belt so far. ” I believe it is just propaganda against such crops and there is no authentic report in this regard”, he added.

Genetically-modified crops continue to make news for the wrong reasons. The Andhra Pradesh government recently sought a ban on Bt cottonseeds following the death of cattle which reportedly grazed on leftover Bt cottonfields. And now, a study by a US professor in AP’s Warangal district finds that farmers growing Bt cotton there are not being able to keep pace with the biotechnological changes.

In an era of transparency, the government has been less than candid on issues of public health. It has, despite an SC order, avoided explicitly mentioning the ”implications and biological results” of field trials of genetically modified crops. In fact, it has questioned the competence of the court to decide matters of ’science and technology’. The ministry of environment, in its affidavit filed as a reply to the SC order, has divulged the complete list of 144 applications it has approved for testing since 2006, including ones of crops meant for human consumption like okra, rice, cauliflower, groundnut, tomato and potato.

For the septuagenarian R. Krishnamurthy, an authority on cotton research in the country after six decades of dedication and innovation, the campaign against genetically engineered (Bt) cottonseeds is a motivated one. ”This campaign of toxicity in this cotton is triggered by some pesticide companies as their use in the cotton sector has slumped drastically, thanks to the Bt seeds. ”After all, it is cotton which consumes 50 per cent of the total pesticide used in the country,” contends the doyen of cotton breeding.

Is the Department of Bio-technology guilty of promoting commercial interests of multinationals? Is it pushing for Genetically Modified (GM) crops at the cost of public health and bio-safety? From allergies among human beings to the death of sheep that ate the crop, activists have blamed GM crops for a number of ills. Now, in a landmark judgement, the Central Information Commission has asked the Department of Biotechnology to disclose information about these crops.

Indian public health experts are not at all excited by the news that American scientists have created genetically modified mosquitoes to help fight malaria, saying it had been tried here before and abandoned as a failure. ’We tried genetic control in the 1970s and abandoned it,’ P.L. Joshi, director of the National Vector Borne Diseases Control Program in New Delhi, told IANS. ’It seemed to work in the lab but failed at field level.’ [...] In any case, the work by US scientists is still far from being taken to the field. So far they have only managed to genetically engineer the mosquitoes to be resistant to a form of malaria that affects mice. This is different from the form that affects humans.

The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 has not helped Greenpeace activist Divya Raghunandan. Her demand for information about safety tests of genetically modified (GM) crops was rejected on the ground that disclosure could harm the competitive position of the third party — the company which developed the crops. In February 2006, Ms. Raghunandan applied to the Department of Biotechnology for information on a list of field trial locations (villages and districts) for brinjal, okra, mustard and rice. These trials drew widespread protests from farmers and consumers last year. In several places, rice trials were destroyed and exporters were particularly alarmed at transgenic rice being tested in basmati growing areas.

he genetic engineering approval committee or GEAC, is flagrantly disregarding the law, says a Planning Commission taskforce report submitted recently as a precursor to the 11th Five-Year Plan. The report has questioned the safety levels being used to regulate GM technology in India. This is the second scathing report from a Planning Commission taskforce, which has created quite a stir by raking up serious concerns about the functioning of the environment ministry.