Skip to main content

Gujarat, Telangana 'being forced to backtrack': Refusal to allow GM cotton field trials

Counterview Desk 

Kavitha Kuruganti of the Coalition for a GM-Free India, in a letter to Bhupender Yadav, Minister for Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India, has said that the decisions in the 149th meeting of GEAC (Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee) suggest state governments are being coerced for no-objection certificates for field trials of the Bollgard II Roundup Ready Flex cotton environmental release.
Stating that the GEAC has already notified field trial sites in 42 different locations across states, the letter wonders, “Why should a statutory regulator be pressurising state governments in this manner?”, pointing out, this is being done despite the fact that it recognises that “agriculture is a state subject, and state governments’ involvement is essential for compliance monitoring” for the “NOC system to be followed.”
This is being done, says the letter despite the "overall failure of GM cotton in India", which is "well-documented", adding,   the published articles of cotton experts like Dr Keshav Kranthi "can be cited in support of the fact that overall chemical usage has increased in cotton cultivation in India, while yields have stagnated." 


We write to you to draw your urgent attention to three important matters pertaining to gene technologies in our food systems, on which the regulatory body GEAC is moving ahead, without some basic issues being addressed.
1. Coercion of State Governments for NOCs for field trials: Over the years, the GEAC has tried very hard to dismantle a system that is part of the regulatory regime in India - that of getting No Objection Certificates before field trials take place. In fact, NOCs logically should be extended to testing after “environmental release” too, as in the case of GM HT mustard. Without this NOC system and in the absence of commercial seed sales with licensing kicking in, state governments are being bypassed in the case of GM mustard planting.
In various meetings, GEAC has already recorded in its Minutes that Agriculture is a State Subject, and state governments’ involvement is essential for compliance monitoring and therefore, the NOC system has to be followed. However, it is also seen that attempts have been made by re-visiting the NOC system multiple times, under pressure from the biotech industry. Event Selection Trials have been exempted from the NOC system already. Even in the case of numerous state governments which have already announced explicitly in some policy or the other that they are against GM crop field trials, GEAC continues to approve trials - the applicant is asked to obtain NOC and come back for a formal permission letter. It is unclear why GEAC should provide approvals in the first instance when state governments have clearly taken a policy decision not to allow deliberate release of any kind of GMOs in their states.
In the latest instance, we find that in the 149th meeting of GEAC which took place on 17th May 2023, when state governments like Telangana and Gujarat have declined to provide NoCs, GEAC is forcing them to provide reasons or break their silence. Why should a statutory regulator be pressurising state governments in this manner? It has also been recorded that some activities will be taken up with state governments “to enable informed decision-making by state governments”. This is a biased lobbying approach that a supposedly-neutral regulatory body is taking up. This is not the mandate of the GEAC and it is highly objectionable that such decisions are being taken, to pressurise state governments. We demand that GEAC should stop coercing state governments, and demean the capabilities within the states.
While ICAR might have financial interest in earning revenue by doing trials for biotech industry, why is regulator GEAC falling in line?
2. “Notified Field Trial Sites” in 42 locations across India: DBT and ICAR have been recorded to have come up with 42 different locations as Notified Field Trial Sites, and once again it is being minuted that state governments’ views and comments will not be sought if the proposed trial is at a NFTS. This is a dangerous proposal. The Sopory Committee which looked into Bikaneri Bt cotton contamination inferred that Monsanto’s proprietary genetic material may have gotten into Bikaneri cotton in an agricultural university. Moreover, such institutes are usually the locations where gene banks are maintained. Importantly, why should trials in NFTS not have NOC for each season and why should this system be bypassed, or why should a proposal for a one-time clearance for 5 years be obtained from the state government? In a country where field trial locations have already proven to be leakage sites for unapproved seeds, why is the statutory regulatory body trying to bypass state governments and looking for hasty ways to taking up trials? While the ICAR might have a financial interest in earning revenue by doing trials for the biotech industry even at the expense of public interest, why is the regulator GEAC falling in line?
3. Roundup Ready Flex Cotton: We have noted the progress that Mahyco’s RRF Cotton is making inexorably towards commercial cultivation approval from the regulators. It is strange that the regulatory regime allows for voluntary withdrawal of dossiers and re-submission again after some years by the applicants. We are aware of the fact that GEAC constituted a Sub-Committee under Dr Sanjay Kumar Mishra in July 2022 in its 145th meeting. We have also noted that this Sub-Committee gave its report in December 2022. We have further noted that this report is not in the public domain on the GEAC website, unsurprisingly.
  • The Supreme Court-appointed committee of independent technical experts has recommended a ban on any HT crops for India. Several other high level official committees have also made a similar recommendation as GEAC is well-aware. The Supreme Court is looking into this matter, as you know.
  • There is more scientific evidence on the adverse impacts of Glyphosate now than ever before/than 2008 when the first BRL-1 trials took place of this RRF cotton. Bayer- Monsanto have had to pay out billions of dollars to affected litigants in the USA as you are well aware. More than two lakh citizens have asked the Government of India to ban Glyphosate in the country. These issues are also part of Supreme Court litigation, as you might be aware.
  • The overall failure of GM cotton in India is also well-documented, and the published articles (attached here) of cotton experts like Dr Keshav Kranthi can be cited in support of the fact that overall chemical usage has increased in cotton cultivation in India, while yields have stagnated. Losses by cotton farmers due to pest infestation and due to resistant target pests is something that farmers and state governments are contending with, season after season.
  • The Indian statutory regulatory regime does not even have guidelines and protocols for testing of HT crops.
  • On the other hand, legally, GEAC is not empowered to set up Sub-Committees for regulatory decision-making.
  • There are no liability and redressal regimes that are in place in the Indian regulatory regime, and the EPA liability regime is not something that is meaningful in the context of adverse impacts from GM crops in general and HT crops in particular.
  • We are also familiar with the biotech industry strategy of illegally introducing GMOs such as RRF cotton first and then getting approval later after a fait accompli is delivered. We strongly object to the lack of regulatory action and capabilities on this front. For years we have been asking GEAC to take strong action to tackle HT cotton, which were not addressed.
In such a situation, to just decide that the crop developer should revise their dossier and re- submit the same is not a pro-citizen decision at all. We object strongly to the GEAC and Government of India proceeding forward towards approval of environmental release and commercial cultivation of Herbicide Tolerant cotton.
Copy of the letter also sent to state chief ministers and GEAC secretariat



'Flawed' argument: Gandhi had minimal role, naval mutinies alone led to Independence

Counterview Desk Reacting to a Counterview  story , "Rewiring history? Bose, not Gandhi, was real Father of Nation: British PM Attlee 'cited'" (January 26, 2016), an avid reader has forwarded  reaction  in the form of a  link , which carries the article "Did Atlee say Gandhi had minimal role in Independence? #FactCheck", published in the site The article seeks to debunk the view, reported in the Counterview story, taken by retired army officer GD Bakshi in his book, “Bose: An Indian Samurai”, which claims that Gandhiji had a minimal role to play in India's freedom struggle, and that it was Netaji who played the crucial role. We reproduce the article here. Text: Nowadays it is said by many MK Gandhi critics that Clement Atlee made a statement in which he said Gandhi has ‘minimal’ role in India's independence and gave credit to naval mutinies and with this statement, they concluded the whole freedom struggle.

A Hindu alternative to Valentine's Day? 'Shiv-Parvati was first love marriage in Universe'

By Rajiv Shah*   The other day, I was searching on Google a quote on Maha Shivratri which I wanted to send to someone, a confirmed Shiv Bhakt, quite close to me -- with an underlying message to act positively instead of being negative. On top of the search, I chanced upon an article in, imagine!, a Nashik Corporation site which offered me something very unusual. 

Don't agree on domestic subsidies, ensure food security at WTO meet: Farmer leaders

Counterview Desk  The Indian Coordination Committee of Farmers Movements (ICCFM), a top network of farmers’ organizations in India, in a letter to Piyush Goyal, Minister of Commerce and Industry, has asked him to “safeguard food security and sovereignty, even as ensuring peasants' rights" at the 13th Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organization (WTO MC 13), to take place from 26 to 29 February 2024 in Abu Dhabi.

Sharp 61-85% fall in Tech startup funding in India's top 'business-friendly' States

By Rajiv Shah Funding in Tech startups in top business-friendly Indian states has witnessed a major fall, a data intelligence platform for private market research has said in a series of reports it has released this month. Analysing Tech startup data of Telangana, Maharashtra, Delhi NCR, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Kerala, Tracxn Technologies Ltd , the Bengaluru-based research firm, finds that except for Kerala, funding witnessed a fall of anywhere between 61% and 85%.

Maize, bajra, jute, banana cultivation banned off West Bengal border: Plea to NHRC

Counterview Desk  West Bengal-based human rights defender Kirity Roy, who is secretary, Banglar Manabadhikar Suraksha Manch, and is national convenor of the Programme Against Custodial Torture & Impunity, in a representation to the chairman, National Human Rights Commission, second within few days, has bought to light one more case of trespassing and destruction of a fertile banana plantation by BSF personnel along the Indo-Bangladesh border, stating, despite a written complaint to the police has taken "no initiative".

India second best place to invest, next to UAE, yet there is 'lacks support' for IT services

By Sreevas Sahasranamam, Aileen Ionescu-Somers*  The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is the best place in the world to start a new business, according to the latest annual Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) survey. The Arab nation is number one for the third year in a row thanks to a big push by the government into cutting-edge technology in its efforts to diversify away from oil.

Solar energy funding dips 9% in 2023; 2024 'kicks off' with US$1 billion investment

By Lakshmitha Raj*  Solar energy tech companies have already secured slightly over US$1 billion in funding in 2024 (till Feb 7, 2024) after total funding into Solar Energy companies in India fell 9% to US$1.55B in 2023 from US$1.7B in 2022. A total of 39 $100M+ rounds have been closed till date, with Delhi leading the city-wise funding, followed by Gurugram and Mumbai.

Buddhist shrines were 'massively destroyed' by Brahmanical rulers: Historian DN Jha

Nalanda mahavihara By Our Representative Prominent historian DN Jha, an expert in India's ancient and medieval past, in his new book , "Against the Grain: Notes on Identity, Intolerance and History", in a sharp critique of "Hindutva ideologues", who look at the ancient period of Indian history as "a golden age marked by social harmony, devoid of any religious violence", has said, "Demolition and desecration of rival religious establishments, and the appropriation of their idols, was not uncommon in India before the advent of Islam".

Mahanadi delta: Aggressive construction in flood plains, reduced fish stock, pollution

By Sudhansu R Das  Frequent natural calamities, unemployment, low farmers’ income, increase in crime rate and lack of quality human resources to strike a balance between growth and environment etc. continue to haunt the state. The state should delve into the root causes of poverty, unemployment and natural calamities.

Narmada Valley's fossil evidence: Ground for 'nationalists' to argue primates' India roots?

By Saurav Sarkar*  In December 1982, a geologist digging in India’s Central Narmada Valley found something he did not expect. Arun Sonakia, who at the time worked for the Geological Survey of India, unearthed a hominid fossil skullcap from the Pleistocene era. The discovery sent shockwaves through the field of paleoanthropology and put South Asia on the map of human prehistory. Some experts concluded that the skull likely belonged to a member of a predecessor species of ours, Homo heidelbergensis , or perhaps was a hybrid of homo species, while Sonakia himself suggested “ an affinity… to Homo erectus .”