Field trials of GM rubber need of hour: Jairam Ramesh

NEW DELHI: Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh has sought to allay the apprehensions raised by the Kerala government about his decision to allow field trials of genetically modified rubber in the state.

In marked contrast to his stand on genetically modified (GM) food crops, the minister has argued that field trials are important for the extension of natural rubber cultivation to non-traditional areas like Tripura, Assam, Meghalaya and North Konkan. Ramesh has argued that the GM approach has become necessary as the challenge of climate change has already resulted in longer dry periods for rubber cultivation.

In a letter to the environment minister on December 20, Kerala agriculture minister,Mullakkara Retnakaran, had pointed out that the field trials which would be conducted by the Rubber Research Institute of India in Kottayam could impact not only the state’s agriculture, “but its agrobiodiversity as well as the highly pristine and vaulable biodiversity”. Retnakaran had also protested the decision arguing that Kerala desires to remain GM free.

The Kerala agriculture minister had argued that since agriculture was a subject on the state list, all future decisions to permit open field trials or releases should be taken after receiving written consent from the states. Responding to the Kerala minister’s concerns, Ramesh has stressed that the GM plant which has been developed by the Rubber Research Institute incorporates a target gene from rubber itself. “Strictly speaking, therefore, this GM plant is not a transgenic in the normal sense of the word,” the minister stressed.

He has clarified that the field trials will be conducted in designated experimental sites inside research farms. “The field trials will not be done in commercially cultivated holdings.”

Further, the Rubber Research Institute of India is not a private research institute, and is therefore not interested “in making GM rubber and making money by selling it…There are no patents for RRII rubber clones which are not IPR protected as far as Indian growers are concerned.”

Finally, the minister has said that the commercial cultivation of GM rubber could be contemplated only on the basis of the proposed field trials, which will take about 14 years.

“A decision on commercial cultivation will be taken only after the field trials are completed fully, at which point of time the views of the state governments concerned will be given due consideration.” The minister has stressed that GM rubber cannot be compared to the bt brinjal case.

India’s experience with Bt cotton illustrative, says US expert

Prof Ronald J.Herring of Cornell University delivering the keynote address at a workshop on Modern Biotechnology in Indian Agriculture in Thiruvananthapuram on Monday.

The widespread adoption of Bt cotton in India illustrates why and how evasion of both bio-property and bio-safety regimes is pervasive globally, said Prof Ronald J. Herring, Cornell University.

A Professor of Government and Director of the Einaudi Center for International Studies at Cornell University, Prof Herring made this observation in a paper being presented at the ongoing two-day workshop on ‘Modern biotechnology in Indian agriculture’ here.

The workshop is being organised by the All-India Crop Biotechnology Association (AICBA) in association with Environment Resource Research Centre (ERRC), Thiruvananthapuram, and Foundation for Biotechnology Awareness and Education (FBAE), Bangalore.

GLOBAL RIFT

The primal global rift around genetic engineering is between agricultural crops and all other uses – such as pharmaceuticals and medicine, Prof Herring says.

Agricultural crops alone have been segregated into an object of politics and governance termed ‘GMOs’ (Genetically Modified Organisms).

This framing is ensconced in contentious politics, law and trade, whether or not the cultivars are used in food.

A second, and logically derivative, global rift divides rival advocacy networks supporting and opposing GMOs – that is, agricultural biotechnology.

This rift is politically charged and administratively consequential. It hinges on two inter-related dimensions: bio-property and bio-safety. Global opposition forms around critiques of genetically engineered crops on both dimensions.

New claims of intellectual property in seeds enabled by the genomics revolution in biology created conflicts over what can be owned, by whom, under what conditions, and in which nation.

Claims of novelty by firms seeking intellectual property reinforce a further aspect of contention: if novel, might products of genetic engineering raise special risks in comparison with cultivars bred by different techniques?

UNIQUELY RISKY

Transnational advocacy politics succeeded in framing ‘GMOs’ as uniquely risky plants, with corresponding global soft law for special regulation, observes Prof Herring.

Farmers have responded to restrictions of both regulation and property claims with stealth strategies.

Such grassroots challenges to formal institutions embarrass both sides of the global rift; neither bio-property nor bio-regulations prove so robust as antagonists in advocacy networks contend.

The Indian experience also uncovers a fundamental contradiction in mobilisation to halt diffusion of biotechnology in agriculture.

Successful demands for stronger regulation of transgenics strengthen property-like rights of multinational firms that find it difficult to enforce their property claims in any other way.

Bio-safety regulation can then function as a substitute for bio-property, producing an ironic and contradictory result for successful mobilisation against genetic engineering in agriculture, Prof Herring said.

The two-day event will discuss the challenges, solutions – need for biotech vegetables and food crops, and how new technologies can enhance the role of agriculture in Indian economy.

Courtesy : The Hindu