GM crops: Biotech regulators’ career trajectories show conflicts of interest

NEW DELHI: Key officials in India’s biotech regulator, which is preparing to take a decision on genetically modified (GM) mustard, are also associated with global

NEW DELHI: Key officials in India’s biotech regulator, which is preparing to take a decision on genetically modified (GM) mustard, are also associated with global organisations that lobby for GM crops, HT has learnt.

HT Image

Such an arrangement represents potential conflicts of interest, critics say, who advocate an arm’s length distance.

On Wednesday, the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC), the regulator empowered to clear GM crops for commercialisation, released an assessment report on GM mustard online for public comments.

Scientists who serve as regulators are mostly GM crop developers themselves, another area of conflicting roles.

The co-developer of GM mustard, Akshay Pradhan, is also a regulator. Pradhan told HT he voluntarily sat out of all meetings concerning GM mustard. “So there is no question of conflict of the interest,” he said.

A GM crop is one in which a gene has been altered for new traits, such as pest resistance or nutritional value. GM mustard, a public-sector developed variety, is the second transgenic food to come up for regulatory approval after BT brinjal, which was indefinitely suspended by the previous UPA government.

Regulators linked to industry-backed non-profits or who have been privately funded GM developers said they were open about their affiliations. They denied any ethical problem because they claimed to have acted in accordance with the regulator’s rules. Critics, however, say this is a serious case of a compromised regulatory framework. Such officials include the GEAC co-chair K Veluthambi, B Sesikeran, a nutrition scientist, and crop scientist SR Rao.

Rao is on the Golden Rice Humanitarian Board funded by an ag ri-business MNC, among others. Sesikeran is a member of the International Life Sciences Institute, a global non-profit partly funded by firms to promote science in agriculture, including GM technologies.

“Being a regulator doesn’t mean you are here to destroy GM science. If you are an airline regulator, does it mean you have to destroy the airline sector? We are here to promote GM science and there is nothing secret about it, only thing it has to be scientifically sound and safe,” Sesikeran said.

GEAC co-chair Veluthambi is involved in a GM rice project. Veluthambi and Rao could not be reached for comments. However, their colleague Pradhan said: “How can you go on suspecting public scientists? GEAC has to depend on the same scientists because they are the only ones available.”

Mere stepping out of meetings does not address the problem of conflict of interest, said Kavitha Kuruganti, who represents an anti-GM advocacy group.

“There is only one reason why modern biotechnology needs regulation — that of protecting us from risks. That function is not being fulfilled with industry-affiliated and other crop developers working as regulators,” Kuruganti said.