A new draft notification from the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change (MoEF&CC), meant to address conflict of interest in regulatory decision-making on genetically modified organisms (GMOs), has come under fire from activists, scientists, and concerned citizens. Critics argue that the proposed amendments fail to meaningfully address the Supreme Court's directive to prevent conflicts of interest in India's GMO regulatory system.
The amendments, published in a Gazette Notification on December 31, 2024, were issued in response to the Supreme Court's July 23, 2024, common order in a batch of public interest litigations (PILs) related to GMOs. The court had directed the government to ensure thorough verification, declaration, and mitigation of conflicts of interest in regulatory bodies. However, the Coalition for a GM-Free India, a network of organizations advocating for safe and sustainable food systems, has criticized the draft amendments for failing to implement these measures effectively.
Key Concerns Raised by Activists
In a formal submission to the ministry, signed by hundreds of citizens, including eminent scientists and experts, the coalition highlighted several flaws in the proposed amendments:
1. No Clear Measures to Avoid Conflicts of Interest – The draft does not prevent GM crop developers or individuals with direct ties to the biotechnology industry from being included in regulatory decision-making. Activists argue that this allows for undue influence in key regulatory bodies.
2. Lack of Representation from a Diverse Range of Interests – The Supreme Court order called for broad representation in decision-making, but the draft does not specify how this will be implemented.
3. Failure to Address Institutional Conflicts of Interest – The coalition points out that organizations like the Department of Biotechnology (DBT), ICAR, and public-private consortia like BCIL have financial ties to GM crop development, making their participation in regulatory processes problematic.
4. Exclusion of Non-Statutory Experts – The proposed rules only apply to members of statutory committees, leaving out external experts who shape regulatory guidelines, despite their significant influence.
5. No ‘Cooling-Off’ Period for Experts – Activists demand that any expert involved in GMO regulation should be barred from working with GM crop developers—public or private—for at least five years after their tenure.
6. Lack of Transparency and Public Oversight – The draft does not propose mechanisms for the public to challenge or report conflicts of interest, nor does it ensure that expert appointments are publicly disclosed beforehand.
7. Weak Self-Declaration Rules – The proposed amendment allows experts to self-declare conflicts of interest, but activists argue that this is insufficient and must be accompanied by independent verification by the ministry.
Call for a Complete Overhaul
The coalition has urged the MoEF&CC to drastically revise the proposed amendments and re-issue a new draft that genuinely upholds the Supreme Court’s mandate. They demand stricter screening, exclusion of conflicted individuals, proactive transparency measures, and independent oversight mechanisms.
"The Supreme Court’s directive was clear: the government must ensure conflict-free, independent regulatory decision-making. The current draft does nothing to address this fundamental issue. Instead, it allows business as usual, where those with vested interests continue to shape GMO policies," said Kavitha Kuruganti, Co-Convenor of the Coalition for a GM-Free India.
Public Outcry and Next Steps
Hundreds of concerned citizens, scientists, and civil society organizations have already submitted their objections to the ministry. With mounting pressure, activists hope the government will acknowledge these concerns and take corrective action.
The full draft amendment notification is available here for public review. The deadline for comments and objections remains open.
---
*Freelance writer
Comments