With this decision, India remains a "GMO" (Genetically Modified
Organisms) free country, since Bt cotton would have been the first
crop to be commercialised.
The decision of the GEAC to demand another year of field trials
to be conducted directly under the supervision the ICAR only
confirms the concerns raised that the data presented was inadequate
and insufficient to introduce Bt cotton into the country, they
stated.
The precautionary approach adopted by the GEAC is undeniably a
laudable one. There was now a need to ensure more public
participation and transparency in the processes, including more
non-official members in the relevant Committees that screen
applications for GMO releases.
"The issue is not purely a scientific one, there are social,
economic and political dimensions, all of which need to be debated
and considered before any conclusion is reached, said PV Satheesh
of the Deccan Development Society, "In view of these dimensions it
is important that the decision making process should actively
involve environmental groups and small and marginal farmers whose
stake is the highest in this debate, he added. \"The decision of
the GEAC is undoubtedly an encouraging one, but the debate had only
just begun.\"
Kalpavriksh, Deccan Development Society, Centre for World
Soilidarity and the Andhra Pradesh Coalition in Defence of
Diversity, organisations working on the issue of biodiversity, with
some deeply involved in the ongoing process of formulating
India’s National Biodiversity Strategy pointed out that given the
potential dangers Genetically Modified (GM) crops could pose to the
socio-ecological security of the country and to the livelihoods of
communities dependent on biodiversity, the Committee had exercised
foresight. They urged that the GEAC should now insist on
comprehensive and long term studies on the potential ecological,
social and economic impacts of any proposed GM crop or GM Food.
Additionally, organic cotton farmers from Maharashtra stated
that they had evolved methods of farming that completely eliminated
the use of pesticides. In contrast, Bt cotton only helped in
reducing such use. They asked what was the point of going in for
such a risky technology when safer alternatives for getting high
cotton output were already available.
"At a time when the issue of Genetically Modified Organisms is
at a nascent stage in the country, there should be no haste in
taking a decision to commercialise, stated Devinder Sharma of the
Forum for Biotechnology and Food Security. \"The fact that the
Monsanto-Mahcyo was hastening the process on the basis of
inadequate data is deplorable. More shocking is the way the
scientific Committees overlooked these glaring flaws in statistics
thereby casting a doubt on the efficiency and competence of the
Monitoring and Evaluation Committee (MEC) and the Review Committee
on Genetic Manipulation (RCGM)", he stated.
Greenpeace pointed out that it was now crucial that information
regarding the field trials be made public and they be conducted in
a most transparent manner to avoid public suspicion and doubt.
The groups demanded that all relevant Committees should
incorporate NGO's and independent scientists and a full assessment
of all alternative methods of tackling cotton pests, including
through organic means be made. Meanwhile, the demands for public
disclosure of previous data collected as well as the need for a
scientific review still stood, they stated.
For more information:Mrs.Nirmala Karunan, Administrator - 080
51154860
Email id: 
For more information:Ganesh Nochur, Campaigner -
080-51154861
Email id: 