It needs to be put in perspective that a team of scientists at Delhi University headed by former vice- chancellor of Delhi University Deepak Pental has bred DMH-11, a genetically modified (GM) mustard hybrid. A little digression is in order to expatiate on what are GMOs. Food and feed normally originate from plants and animals grown and bred by humans since time immemorial. Over time, those plants and animals with the most agreeable traits were chosen for breeding the next generations of food and feed. This was, for instance, the case for plants with an increased resistance to environmental pressures such as diseases or with an augmented yield.

What is notable is that these desirable traits appeared through naturally occurring variations in the genetic make-up of those plants or animals with no extraneous efforts. In recent times, because of the breakthrough in biotechnology, it became possible to modify the genetic make-up of living cells and organisms using demonstrated techniques. Thus the genetic material is modified artificially to accord a new property to it (e.g., a plant’s resistance to a disease, insect or drought, a plant’s tolerance to an herbicide, improving a food’s quality or nutritional value, increased crop productivity). Such organisms are billed “genetically modified organisms” (GMOs). Food and feed which encapsulate or consist of such GMOs or are engendered from GMOs are dubbed “Genetically Modified (GM) food of feed”.

In the Western world, GM food is widely made available in the United States, but in the 28 member European Union (EU), there is an established legal framework to ensure that the development of modern biotechnology and more specifically of GMs supervenes in safe milieu. The EU legal framework aims at safeguarding human and animal health and the environment by introducing a safety assessment of the highest possible standards at EU level before any GMO is placed on the market. Besides, the EU has put in place harmonized procedures for risk assessment across its member nations and authorization of GMOs that are efficient, time-limited and transparent. More specifically, the EU legal framework ensures clear labeling of GMOs placed on the market in order to enable consumers, as well as professionals such as farmers and food feed chain operators to make an informed choice.

Even with this bulwark against potential problems such synthetic food and feed might bring in its train, the EU imports substantial quantities of GM feed, but very little GM food. That said, the import of milk powder, dairy products and non-conventional edible oils imported from the EU countries by India have to wrestle with the intake of GM soya fed livestock. For instance in 2013, according to EU statistics, the European Union imported 18.5 million tonnes of soymeal and 13.5 million tonnes of soybean, representing more than 60 per cent of the Union plant protection needs. For epicureans with conventional liking for non-GM feed, the choice here is to prefer indigenous oils and domestic dairy products!

Interestingly, the EU which has little qualms in making extensive use of GMO feed for its livestocks and also for consuming cooking oil extracted from such GMO oilseeds for human consumption which it also exports to third countries along with its dairy products gets paranoid when it comes to the question of GM food. How else could one explain the slender availability of the number of GM products for direct human consumption in the vast and unified EU markets with millions of consumers? In fact, many food business operators in the EU have made the choice of not placing GM food on the shelves which might be linked to the labeling onus of the GMO legal framework, as well as the availability of non-GM alternatives. The EU legislation mandates GM labeling on any GM food and feed containing, consisting of or produced from a GMO, save if the presence is below 0.9 per cent of the food/feed, or the ingredient is adventitious or technically unavoidable.

The point to ponder over is that when the entire EU consisting of close to 30 countries have high reservations in introducing GM foods or GMOs that might get directly into the stomach of its citizens, is it fair on the part of a country of continental size like India with little legal framework on the implications or repercussions of the GM to allow commercialization of genetically modified brinjal or mustard in the name of ensuring higher productivity or catering to the vast needs of the population? Those who extol GM foods call the opponents Luddities for their ostrich-like obduracy, refusing to count the blessings such a genetically modified organism would help in reducing the country’s import dependence for edible oils!

Given the fact that out of the total 14.5 million tones of imports, 3.5 million tones comprises soyabean and rapeseed oil which are mostly GMO, there is no justification in postponing a decision on the early commercialization of the field trials of GM mustard hybrid, proponents point out with all the wisdom they have. While one could sympathize with them that the best response to the most crucial question would flow from more knowledge, not enforced ignorance, the very fact that the plunge into unknown risks producing undesirable upshot cannot be ruled out till the world by and large starts using these synthetic foodstuffs with no baleful effect. Even the farm scientists have a divided perspective on this issue with the views ranging from outright rejection to qualified approval to lump it lock, stock and barrel!

As it is, the advent of junk food and fast food into the country had robbed the richness and variety of traditional Indian cuisines, bringing in its wake hitherto unheard-of life-style diseases such as diabetes and obesity even in the early age of life. The price of easy adoption of untested and unproven GMO food should not be prohibitive in terms of health lost even as the wealth accruing to multinational seed companies as in the case of Bt. cotton and the patent holders of the GMO mustard—be it government-funded research organization—as in the latter case would be substantial.

With the country’s farm sector in a bind of weather-related aberrations, the need to intensify support services to farmers and help them overcome their multiple problems ranging from land, seed, water to nutrients are far more important than the diversionary foray into any esoteric experiment that would only compound their miseries in the long haul without giving them the wherewithal to sustain their operation and eke out a better living standard.
(IPA Service)