GM Mustard: Is it a Victory or a Loss?

Susmita Saha*

On October 18 last year, Dhara Mustard Hybrid-11 (DMH11), a genetically modified (GM) mustard variant, received government clearance for commercial production. The Genetic Engineering

Appraisal Committee (GEAC) which works as a Central Regulator under the Ministry of Environment and Forests, has given its approval for the ‘environmental release’ of transgenic mustard for seed production and field testing.¹

Experts think that it will take another 2-3 years before GM mustard seeds are released for commercial cultivation. The approval by GEAC is given initially for a span of four years. However, the approval may be revoked if any harmful effects were to be noticed later. The State Governments have the right to deny the “environmental release” of the latest GM mustard variant. Prior to commercial cultivation, gene developers are required to undergo multiple processes while adhering to the stipulated conditions under the supervision of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR).

The sanction for GM mustard makes it the second such approval in the country after Bt cotton. There has been a mixed reaction from farmers’ groups, industry lobbies, media, and society at large. While the supporters of the GM crop have welcomed it as a historical decision, its critics have called it a shocking and unscientific step. In the following paragraphs, we have tried to simplify some of the complex issues and concepts involved in GM crops and their commercial cultivation.

Difference between a Hybrid and GM crop

The use of the term hybrid in naming the latest variant of GM mustard may suggest that it a benign version of plant breeding. However, a hybrid GM crop is quite different from a simple hybrid variant which does not involve artificial methods of genetic modifications.

Simple cross-breeding in plants and crops has been happening in the wild between naturally compatible varieties within the same species since plant life began on earth.² Human beings started using the technique of controlled cross-breeding or hybridisation during agricultural development after human settlement. Prior to hybridisation, the creation of an open-pollinated (OP) variety using classic plantbreeding methods took around six to 10 generations.

A plant breeder exchanges genes between two plants to produce offspring that have desired traits, by transferring the male (pollen) of one plant to the female organ of another. However. cross-breeding is confined to exchanges between the same or very closely related species.³ On the contrary, GM technology or genetic engineering enables plant breeders to bring together in one plant useful genes from a diverse range of living sources, not just from within that crop species or from closely related species.

Under modern hybridisation, plant breeders produce seeds that combine the desired traits of two pure parent lines within a single generation. The new variety that is created is known as an “F1 hybrid.” Producing F1 seed is preferred over breeding new open-pollinated varieties by plant breeders because the former method is faster and easier. The bad traits present in the parents can be culled whereas the parent crops’ good traits can be stored in the F1 offspring. Farmers and gardeners also prefer hybrid seeds over seeds from open-pollinated varieties because the former has better disease resistance.

Modern hybridisation by corporate seed manufacturers gives them proprietary ownership of each new variety. On top of that, since “F1” plants do not produce uniform offspring, farmers and gardeners can be compelled to purchase new seeds every year from seed manufacturers.

By employing complex technologies such as gene splicing, GM varieties are created in a laboratory. It is often the case that under genetic modification, genes are transferred from one species to another. No one can guess how the new organism created through GM technology is going to behave over time. Since seed companies enjoy intellectual property rights (IPR) over GMOs, even scientists and experts are not allowed to study them independently. We will come back to this later.

A Brief History of GM Mustard

To understand the history of the GM mustard, we need to go back almost two decades. The first variant of GM mustard whose nomenclature was DMH-1 was developed indigenously under the auspices of Prof Deepak Pental, at the Centre for Genetic Manipulation of Crop Plants, located at the University of Delhi.⁴ Prof Pental also worked as the university’s Vice-Chancellor at one point.

Developed without using transgenic technology, the hybrid variant DMH-1 was approved for commercial release in Northwest India in 2005-2006. However, this technology was not considered reliable enough. In the case of mustard, hybridisation cannot take place because it is a self-pollinating plant i.e.,

the both male and female components are present in the flowers of the plant. In this type of situation, since the stamen of the same flower fertilises the pistil, it becomes difficult to create hybrids. It is because the stamen of another plant cannot be used for hybridisation.⁵

In order to turn off self-pollination and consistently produce hybrid mustard, which can be used by plant breeders to cross better mustard varieties, there was a need to manipulate the mustard plant’s genes. DMH-11 originated by crossing two varieties: Varuna

and Early Heera-2. A cross was made possible after introducing genes from two soil bacterium called barnase and barstar. While a temporary sterility induced by barnase in Varuna helped in stopping self-pollination, the presence of barstar in Heera blocks the effect of barnase that allows seeds to be produced. Hence, DMH-11 is a transgenic crop i.e., genetically engineered crop because it is produced using foreign genes from a different species i.e., soil bacteria.

Advantages of GM Mustard

India currently imports the bulk of edible oils from countries like Argentina, Brazil, Indonesia, Malaysia, Russia, and Ukraine. In value terms, the country’s import of edible oils grew from Rs. 299 billion to Rs. 682 billion between 2010-11 and 2019-20. In terms of quantity, our import of edible oils increased from 69.0 lakh tonnes in 2010-11 to 146.4 lakh tonnes in 2019-20.⁶ With the current war between Russia and Ukraine, the import of edible oils is putting an additional burden on the country’s forex reserves. It is believed by the supporters of GM mustard that it is expected to make us self-sufficient in edible oils production because its yield is higher than the non-GM mustard varieties.⁷

The approval given to GM mustard is anticipated to open the doors for the approval of other varieties of GM crops.⁸ Once other GM crops are allowed to be grown commercially, it will not only benefit the farmers in terms of better profitability and productivity, it can also ensure India’s food security and sovereignty.

GM mustard is expected to raise productivity with a lesser cost of cultivation. Hence, mustard farmers growing it are expected to experience an increase in their profitability. At least this is the argument of those who support GM crops.

A Critique of GM Crops

Many activists, some of them scientists and agriculturists, have contended that the data submitted by crop developers to the regulator does not prove that GM mustard will raise yields.

In order to control weeds, weedicide or herbicide is used by farmers.⁹ The activists argue that the pretext for creating hybrid technology in a plant like mustard is that it is an herbicide tolerant crop, according to the civil society network -- Coalition for a GM-Free India.¹⁰ For weed control, weedicides or herbicides are preferred over tillage and hand weeding because the latter leave valuable topsoil exposed to wind and water erosion. On top of that, tillage and hand weeding increases labour cost.

Broad-spectrum or non-selective herbicide is used before the crop germinates. Otherwise, herbicides can kill crops along with weeds. Weeds grow even after initial measures to control them. Although farmers apply narrow-spectrum herbicides to control specific types of weeds, weed control methods can increase the financial burden of farmers and adversely affect the environment.

When herbicide-tolerant (HT) crops are grown in the fields, they do not die when the herbicide is sprayed. In other words, HT crops give farmers the flexibility to apply herbicides only when required. However, HT crops can lead to the “growth of new weeds through outcrossing with wild relatives or simply by persisting in the wild themselves.”

Some experts think that traces of herbicides like glyphosate and glufosinate in food can be harmful to human health and the environment.

According to Coalition for a GM-Free India, if GM mustard is allowed to be commercially cultivated, then there is a risk of contamination of organic mustard varieties as well as the wild varieties.¹¹ There is a risk of the persistence of transgene in the wild populations of the same crop. Thus, GM crops may cause the emergence of herbicide-resistant superweeds. It is also argued that nothing conclusive can be said about yield and other parameters without comparing GM mustard against ecologically-sustainable alternatives.

The process of review of GM mustard is not rigorous enough in order to assess its safety and efficacy. Given the evidence of the adverse effects of Bt cotton on honeybees, more studies are required to check the impact of GM mustard on insect life, especially because bee-keeping in India is largely dependent on the mustard crop. In addition, the impact of GM mustard on other pollinators and soil microbial diversity needs to be checked.

The opponents also argue that instead of the regulator conducting studies related to GM crops, many were found to be conducted by applicants. Also, the guidelines related to environmental risk assessment were not in place when the GM mustard application was processed. It has been alleged by Coalition for a GMFree India that several tests that should have been taken up during the biosafety assessment phase, were pushed by a sub-committee of GEAC into post-release monitoring studies. That sub-committee included people from outside, including GM crop proponents.

It is worth noting that in order to pursue the goal of safe usage of GM crops through the “Precautionary Approach”, India ratified several International conventions.¹² Yet a press release by the Ministry says that Bt cotton, named over the strains of the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, is the only GM crop, which has been approved for commercial cultivation in our country.¹³ But the official website shows that around 809 varieties of Bt cotton hybrids have been approved by GEAC since 2002.¹⁴ During 2012-2015, the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) conducted a study to assess the impact of Bt cotton on 2,700 cotton growing farmers in 18 districts of Maharashtra which revealed that the average cotton yield increased after the adoption of Bt cotton. Studies by ICAR on the use of Bt Cotton as animal feed found it was safe. The studies were done on lambs, cows, hens and goats.

One gets a different picture after going through the report of a department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science and Technology, Environment and Forests, which was chaired by Ms. Renuka Chowdhury.¹⁵ The report entitled ‘Genetically Modified Crops and its impact on environment’ was submitted in 2017. Among other things, it was found that the existing regulatory mechanism for approval and testing of GM crops looks stringent on paper only.¹⁶ However. as per the civil society organisations (CSOs) who were consulted by that Committee, the whole process of regulation depends upon the data being made available to the regulators by the technology developers rather than conducting their own trials which gives rise to the possibility of fudging of data.

The same Parliamentary Standing Committee report had mentioned that although most members of the GEAC are bureaucrats from the government and government aided institutions, there is almost no representation from states or CSOs. It recommended the government that the GEAC should have at least one expert from the field of biotechnology who understands scientific data and its implication.

Guidelines related to environmental risk assessment were not in place when the GM mustard application was processed

The Standing Committee found that cotton yields jumped by 69% between 2000 and 2005 in India, when Bt cotton accounted for less than 6% of the total cotton area, but rose by only 10% between 2005 and 2015, when Bt cotton grew to 94% of total cotton area. So, a proper assessment is required to see the increase in Bt cotton’s yield since its commercial introduction in 2005.

The Parliamentary Standing Committee found that the GEAC gave its approval for the commercialisation of GM mustard even though the matter was pending in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Being herbicide tolerant, there are serious questions related to GM mustard’s impact on health and environment, said the report.

Around twenty years after their introduction in 1996, just 6 countries account for more than 90% of GM crop area globally i.e., the United States - 40%, Brazil - 23%, Argentina - 14%, India - 6%, Canada - 6% and China - 2%. Thanks to the rising number of evidence about the lack of safety of GM crops and little or no benefits to justify the risks associated with growing such crops, 17 of the 20 most developed countries, including Europe, Japan, Russia, Israel, etc., do not grow them.

The Parliamentary Standing Committee was not convinced with the duration and the way ICAR conducted its feeding trials to study the impact of GM crops on animal health.¹⁷ They were surprised to note that feeding trials were conducted on very few animals whereas ideally, they should have been conducted on a large number of animals and for at least 2-3 generations. The Committee was dissatisfied with the methodology opted by the ICAR for conducting the feeding trials.

The Standing Committee had found that the Department of Health Research (under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare) gave approval for the commercialisation of GM crops in India even without studying on its own the impact of GM crops on human health. It also found a detrimental and unintended impact on environment and living organisms like bees, butterflies, etc.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of India on November 3, 2022, granted time till November 10, 2022, to the Union government to respond to a petition by Aruna Rodrigues that challenged its decision giving the go-ahead to environmental clearance for DMH-11.¹⁸ The court has asked the government to put its response on record, along with an affidavit and supporting documents. On November 10, the government defended its decision to release GM crops for seed production and field testing. The Supreme Court has not decided the matter yet.¹⁹

Some experts think that even if farmers stand in favour of GM crops, they may not be able to assess their long-term consequence on health and ecology, which requires more rigorous studies than the ones conducted so far.²⁰

Another important point to ponder before making commercial cultivation of GM crops rampant should have been to take into consideration the recommendations and findings of multiple high-power committees and reports such as the Technical Expert Committee on GM crops constituted by the Supreme Court in 2012, the Standing Committee on Agriculture (chaired by Basudeb Acharia) that submitted its 37th report on GM crops cultivation in the Parliament in August 2012, and the Standing Committee on Science and Technology, Environment and Forests, chaired by Ms. Renuka Chowdhury that submitted its report to Parliament on GM crops in 2017.²¹

The Department of Health Research gave approval for the commercialisation of GM crops in India even without studying on its own the impact of GM crops on human health

A case in point is also to make India’s trade policies more farmerfriendly.²² At present, the pricing of oilseeds and edibles oil is more in favour of the consumers instead of the farmers. The production of oilseeds needs to be incentivised by the government. The System of Mustard Intensification (SMI) needs to be promoted among the oilseed farmers for improving the yield and lowering the cost of cultivation.

Endnotes

• Mohan, V. (2022, October 27). GM Mustard Gets Nod For Seed Production, Testing. Times of India. Retrieved November 4, 2022, from https://bit.ly/3fXiCSx
• Mattern, V. (2013, January 16). Hybrid Seeds vs. GMOs. Mother Earth News. Retrieved November 9, 2022, from https://bit.ly/3GeKkVp
• Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science & Technology, Environment & Forests. (2017, December 18). 301st Report: “Genetically Modified Crops and its Impact on Environment”. Retrieved November 9, 2022, from https://bit.ly/3UXYxKB
• Koshy, J. (2022, November 2). The new hybrid variant of mustard. The Hindu. Retrieved November 4, 2022, from https://bit.ly/3E5ocds
• Explained: What is genetically modified mustard? (2022, October 28). Deccan Herald. Retrieved November 9, 2022, from https://bit.ly/3X2NGRt
• Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices. (2021, March). Report on Price Policy for Kharif crops of 2021-22 season. Retrieved November 9, 2022, from https://bit.ly/3TxHs95
• Supra Note 5
• Narayanamoorthy, A (2022, November 3). A richer harvest. Why GM mustard is needed. The Hindu Business Line. Retrieved November 10, 2022 from https://bit.ly/3O7FLOv
• International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA). Herbicide Tolerance Technology: Glyphosate and Glufosinate. Retrieved November 9, 2022, from https://bit.ly/3hyivg
• Nod to herbicide tolerant GM mustard will be strongly resisted: Union govt warned (2022, October 22). Counterview.net. Retrieved November 9, 2022 from https://bit.ly/3g3c6cJ
• Id.
• Supra Note 3
• Press Information Bureau Government of India. (2022, July 25). Press release: Clearance of Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) Mandatory for The Environmental Release of Genetically Modified (GM) Crops. Retrieved November 9, 2022, from https://bit.ly/3Acqy9o
• GEAC, Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee, Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change. Year-wise list of commercially released varieties of Bt cotton hybrids. Retrieved November 9, 2022, from https://bit.ly/3EuYUqE
• Supra Note 3
• PRS Legislative Research. Genetically modified crops and its impact on environment. Retrieved November 9, 2022, from https://bit.ly/3X0vuaR
• Supra Note 3
• Nitnaware, H. (2022, November 3). Supreme Court puts environmental release of GM mustard on hold. Down to Earth. Retrieved November 11, 2022 from https://bit.ly/3AetjH8
• Tripathi, A. (2022, November 10). GM mustard to enhance productivity, reduce pendency: Centre to Supreme Court. Deccan Herald. Retrieved November 14, 2022, from https://bit.ly/3O0OdiJ
• Aga, A. (2019, June 18). Serious concerns over Bt brinjal. The Hindu. Retrieved November 14, 2022, from https://bit.ly/2MTNV19
• Supra Note 3
• Supra Note 10

---

NEXT »

The Ecosystem of GM Foods >>