2. Introduction
• Genetically modified crops (GMCs,
GM crops) are plants used in
agriculture, the DNA of which has
been modified using genetic
engineering techniques. Genetic
engineering is the simple addition,
deletion, or manipulation of a single
trait in an organism to create a
desired change. In most cases, the
aim is to introduce a new trait to the
plant which does not occur naturally
in the species
3. History of
GMC's
• 10,000 years ago humans began
domestication using selective breeding.
During 1700s farmers and scientists
started cross breeding plants. In 1980s
researchers develop the more precise and
controllable methods of genetic
engineering to create plants with desirable
traits. The first genetically modified crop
plant was produced in 1982, an antibiotic
resistant tobacco plants.
• The first GM crop was produced in 1982,
an antibiotic resistant tobacco plant.
• The first field trials occurred in France and
the USA in 1986, when tobacco plants
were engineered for herbicide resistance.
4. In 1987, Plant Genetic Systems (Ghent, Belgium), founded by Marc
Van Montagu and Jeff Schell, was the first company to genetically
engineer insect resistant (tobacco) plants by incorporating genes that
produced insecticidal proteins from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt).
In 2000, Vitamin A enriched golden rice was developed.
In 2013, the leaders of the three research teams that first applied
genetic engineering to crops, Robert Fraley, Marc Van Montagu
and MaryDell Chilton were awarded the World Food Prize for
improving the “quality, quantity or availability” of food in the world.
6. World Production of GMC’s
• In 2015, GM crops were grown in 28 countries and on 179.7 million hectares –
that is over 10% of the world’s arable land and equivalent to seven times the land
area of the UK. The USA, Brazil and Argentina are the leading producers. There
are currently no GM crops being grown commercially in the UK although
scientists are carrying out controlled trials.
• The GM crops grown commercially included: potato (USA), squash/pumpkin
(USA) alfalfa (USA), aubergine (Bangladesh), sugar beet (USA, Canada), papaya
(USA and China), oilseed rape (4 countries), maize (corn) (17 countries), soya
beans (11 countries) and cotton (15 countries).
• The farming of GM crops has massively increased since the mid 1990s. In 1996,
just 1.7 million hectares (Mha) were planted with GM crops globally but by 2015,
179.7 million hectares of GM crops were grown, accounting for over 10% of the
world’s arable land.
7. • The top GM crop grown in 2015 was soybean (92.1 Mha), followed by
maize (53.6 Mha), then cotton (24 Mha) and oilseed rape (canola) (8.5
Mha) (Figure 4). This represents 83% of the world production of soybean,
and 75% of production of cotton. GM crops made up 29% of the world’s
maize produce, and almost a quarter of the world’s oilseed rape that year.
• Among the countries growing GM crops, the USA (70.9 Mha), Brazil (44.2
Mha), Argentina (24.5 Mha) India (11.6 Mha) and Canada (11 Mha) are the
largest users. Within Europe, five EU countries grow GM maize – Spain,
Portugal, Czech Republic, Romania and Slovakia. Spain is the leading
country (0.1 Mha). In Africa, GM crops are grown in South Africa (2.3
Mha), Burkino Faso (0.4 Mha) and Sudan (0.1Mha), with the main crop
being GM cotton.
8. India’s Path in GMC's
• Bt cotton is the only genetically modified (GM) crop that has been approved for
commercial cultivation in 2002 by the Government of India. Long term studies
were conducted by ICAR on the impact of Bt cotton which did not show any
adverse effect on soil, microflora and animal health. However, the Parliamentary
Standing Committee on Science and Technology, Environment and Forests, in its
report on ‘Genetically modified crops and its impact on environment’, submitted to
parliament on August 25, 2017, recommended that GM crops should be
introduced in the country only after critical scientific evaluation of its benefit and
safety, and also recommended restructuring of regulatory framework for unbiased
assessment of GM crops.
• In 2002 approval for the commercial release of Bt cotton hybrids/ varieties
resistant to cotton bollworm was given.
9. • Bt Brinjal resistant to brinjal shoot fly developed by M/S Mahyco in collaboration with
University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad; Tamil Nadu Agricultural University,
Coimbatore and ICAR-Indian Institute of Vegetable Research, Varanasi was approved by
GEAC in 2009 but due to 10 years moratorium imposed on GM crops by the Technical
Expert Committee (TEC) appointed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, no further
action on commercialization has been taken. Recently the Genetic Engineering Appraisal
Committee (GEAC), MoEF&CC, Govt. of India has again allowed biosafety research field
trials of two new transgenic varieties of indigenously developed Bt Brinjal in eight states
during 2020-23 only after taking no-objection certificate (NOC) from states concerned and
confirmation of availability of isolated stretch of land for this purpose. These indigenous
transgenic varieties of brinjal hybrids – namely Janak and BSS-793, containing Bt
Cry1Fa1 gene (Event 142) – have been developed by the National Institute for Plant
Biotechnology, (NIPB, erstwhile National Research Centre on Plant Biotechnology, New
Delhi), Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR).
10. • GM mustard Dhara Mustard Hybrid 11 (DMH 11) developed by Delhi University is pending for
commercial release as GEAC has advised to generate complete safety assessment data on
environmental bio-safety, especially effects on beneficial insect species. No such request is pending
in the matter.
• ICAR always promotes the science based innovative technology including research on GM crops.
‘Network Project on Transgenic in Crops’ (presently Network Project on Functional Genomics and
Genetic Modification in Crops was launched by ICAR in 2005 for development of GM crops in case
of pigeonpea, chickpea, sorghum, potato, brinjal, tomato and banana for different traits and the
material is in different stages of development.
• The Government of India has very strict guidelines to test and evaluate the agronomic value of the
GM crops so as to protect the interests of the farmers. These guidelines address all concerns with
regard to the safety of GM seeds. The regulatory system for GM crops as operative in the
Department of Biotechnology, Ministry of Science and Technology (Review Committee on Genetic
Manipulation; RCGM) and Ministry of Environment and Forests (Genetic Engineering Appraisal
Committee; GEAC) has guidelines to consider the GM crops on case-by-case basis towards
testing.)
11. Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee
(GEAC)
• The Committee shall function as a Statutory Body under the Ministry of
Environment & Forests for approval of activities involving large-scale use of
hazardous living microorganisms and recombinants in research and industrial
production from the environmental angle as per the provisions of rules 1989.
• The Committee shall also be responsible for approval of proposal relating to
release of genetically engineered organisms and products into the environment
including experimental field trials as per the provisions of Rules, 1989.
• The Committee shall be responsible for approval of proposals involving the use of
living modified organism falling in the risk category Ill and above in the
manufacture/import of recombinant Pharma products or where the end product of
the recombinant Pharma products per se is a living modified organism.
12. • The Committee may co-opt other members/experts to the GEAC in accordance with the provisions
of Section 4, para 3 of the Rules, 1989 as necessary.
• The Committee may also appoint subgroups/sub-committees/expert committee to undertake
specific activities related to compliance of biosafety.
• One third members of the GEAC will constitute the quorum for convening the meeting.
• The members of the GEAC will be required to sign a ‘Statement of Declaration of Independence’
and ‘Statement of Confidentiality’ (as per enclosed proforma).
• The Committee shall function for a period of three year from the date of issue of this notification.
• With the approval of the Chairman GEAC, if required, representative of other Ministries and other
experts may be invited as ‘Special Invitees’ to participate in the meeting of the GEAC depending on
the issues to be discussed.
• Major companies interested in Genetically Modified crops in India include Monsanto India, Mahyco
and BASF. The industry body — Association of Biotech Led Enterprises- Agriculture Group (ABLE-
AG) wants a progressive push to the march of GM technology in India.
13. Controversies Associated With GMC’s in
India
• 2006 – Activists filed a PIL against GM crops in the Supreme Court.
• 2010 – The then environmental minister Jairam Ramesh blocked the release of
Bt Brinjal until further notice owing to a lack of consensus among scientists and
opposition from brinjal-growing states. No objection certificates from states were
made mandatory for field trials.
• 2012 – Parliamentary standing committee on agriculture, in its 37th report asked
for an end to all GM field trials in the country.
• 2013 July – New crop trials have been effectively on hold since late 2012, after a
supreme court-appointed expert panel recommended suspension for 10 years
until regulatory and monitoring systems could be strengthened. Though the SC
panel suggested moratorium on GM trails, there was no official verdict from the
Supreme Court on this issue.
14. • 2013 July – Environment minister Jayanthi Natarajan put on hold all trials following SC
panel suggestions.
• 2014 – Her successor, Veerappa Moili cleared the way for trails. (NB: Two of Manmohan
Singh’s own environment ministers had stalled GM trials earlier, but Veerappa Moily took
an opposite stand and the process of approving the one-acre field trials restarted.)
• 2014 March – GEAC (UPA government) approved field trials for 11 crops, including
maize, rice, sorghum, wheat, groundnut and cotton.
• 2014 July – 21 new varities of genetically modified (GM) crops such as rice, wheat, maize
and cotton have been approved for field trials by the NDA government in July 2014. The
Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) — consisting mostly of bio-technology
supporters — rejected just one out of the 28 proposals up for consideration. Six proposals
were rejected for want of more information.
15. • 2016: GEAC gave green signal to GM Mustard for field trial, but
SC stayed the order and sought public opinion on the same.
• There are as many as 20 GM crops already undergoing trails at
various stages.
16. Regulatory Mechanisms in India
• The top biotech regulator in India is Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee
(GEAC). The committee functions as a statutory body under the Environment
Protection Act 1986 of the Ministry of Environment & Forests (MoEF). It was
earlier known as Genetic Engineering Approval Committee. Under the EPA 1986
“Rules for Manufacture, import, Export and Storage of Hazardous
Microorganisms/Genetically Engineered Organisms or Cells 1989”, GEAC is
responsible for granting permits to conduct experimental and large-scale open
field trials and also grant approval for commercial release of biotech crops.
• The Rules of 1989 also define five competent authorities i.e. the Institutional
Biosafety Committees (IBSC), Review Committee of Genetic Manipulation
(RCGM), Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), State Biotechnology
Coordination Committee (SBCC) and District Level Committee (DLC) for handling
of various aspects of the rules.
17. Genetically Modified Crops
CORN:
Corn is the most commonly grown crop in the United States, and most of
it is GMO. Most GMO corn is created to resist insect pests or tolerate
herbicides. Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) corn is a GMO corn that produces
proteins that are toxic to certain insect pests but not to humans, pets,
livestock, or other animals. These are the same types of proteins that
organic farmers use to control insect pests, and they do not harm
beneficial insects, such as ladybugs. GMO Bt corn reduces the need for
spraying insecticides while still preventing insect damage. While a lot of
GMO corn goes into processed foods and drinks, most of it is used to
feed livestock, like cows, and poultry, like chickens.
18. SOYABEAN
Most soy grown in the United States is GMO soy. Most GMO soy is used for
food for animals, predominantly poultry and livestock, and making soybean oil.
It is also used as ingredients (lecithin, emulsifiers, and proteins) in processed
foods.
COTTON
GMO cotton was created to be resistant to bollworms and helped revive the
Alabama cotton industry. GMO cotton not only provides a reliable source of
cotton for the textile industry, it is also used to make cottonseed oil, which is
used in packaged foods and in many restaurants for frying. GMO cottonseed
meal and hulls are also used in food for animals.
19. POTATO
Some GMO potatoes were developed to resist insect pests and disease. In addition,
some GMO potato varieties have been developed to resist bruising and browning that
can occur when potatoes are packaged, stored, and transported, or even cut in your
kitchen. While browning does not change the quality of the potato, it often leads to food
being unnecessarily thrown away because people mistakenly believe browned food is
spoiled.
PAPAYA
By the 1990s, ringspot virus disease had nearly wiped out Hawaii’s papaya crop, and in
the process almost destroyed the papaya industry in Hawaii. A GMO papaya, named
the Rainbow papaya, was created to resist ringspot virus. This GMO saved papaya
farming on the Hawaiian Islands.
20. APPLE
Few varieties of GMO apples were developed to resist browning after being cut. This helps
cut down on food waste, as many consumers think brown apples are spoiled.
SUGAR BEET
Sugar beets are used to make granulated sugar. More than half the granulated sugar
packaged for grocery store shelves is made from GMO sugar beets. Because GMO sugar
beets are resistant to herbicides, growing GMO sugar beets helps farmers control weeds in
their fields.
PINK PINEAPPLE
The GMO pink pineapple was developed to have pink flesh by increasing the levels of
lycopene. Lycopene is naturally found in pineapples, and it is the pigment that makes
tomatoes red and watermelons pink.
21. Safety of Genetically Modified Food
• The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is the primary
regulatory agency responsible for ensuring the safety of GMO
and non-GMO food for animals. The FDA Center for Veterinary
Medicine manages this responsibility. FDA requires that all food
for animals, like food for human foods, be safe for animals to
eat, be produced under clean conditions, contain no harmful
substances, and be accurately labeled.
22. Economic Concerns
• Bringing a genetically modified food to market can be a costly
and lengthy process, and of course, agricultural bio-technology
companies want to ensure a profitable ROI. So, many new plant
genetic engineering technologies and products have been
patented, and patent infringement is a big concern within the
agribusiness. Also, consumer advocates are worried that this will
raise seed prices to very high levels that third-world countries and
small farmers cannot afford them, thus widening the gap between
the rich and the poor.
23. Argument in Favour of GMC’s
• The proponents, argue that the GM technologies have been around for about 15 years
and they have been in use across the world including in countries such as Brazil and
China. During a visit to India in March 2005, Norman Borlaug – widely regarded as the
father of the Green Revolution – supported producing genetically modified (GM) food to
eradicate hunger from the world. “It is better to die eating GM food instead of dying of
hunger,” said the Nobel laureate, who passed away in 2009.
• Former prime minister, Manmohan Singh, saw biotechnology as key to food security and
warned against succumbing to “unscientific prejudices”.
• “The concerns over their (GM crops) perceived risks should be addressed by following
internationally accepted procedures for assessing safety parameters. ICAR, which is
involved in developing useful products and technologies in this field, must contribute to
the public discourse and provide clarity on this sensitive issue,” – President Pranab
Mukerjee.
24. • Indian intelligence agency names anti-GM groups such as Greenpeace India and Gene Campaign
as one of the many “anti-national” foreign-funded NGOs hampering India’s economic progress.
• Agriculture scientists from research institutions including IARI, ICAR and various Universities
demanding “field trials” for GM crops, arguing that “confined field trials are essential for the
evaluation of productivity performance as well as food and environmental safety assessment”.
• A group of prominent scientists had met under ‘father of green revolution’ MS Swaminathan at
National Academy of Agricultural Sciences ( NASA) and issued a 15-point resolution in favour of
GM crops.
• “A brinjal crop normally requires up to 30 sprays of insecticides. This goes into the human
consumption indirectly. If we grow and consume Bt brinjal, we will consume some of the genes that
have been built into the seeds to make the crop pest- and herbicide-resistant. Ultimately, we have to
see which of the two is less harmful for consumption” – S.S. Gosal, Director of Research, Punjab
Agriculture University.
25. Arguments Against GMC's
• Organisations such as Greenpeace argue that the GM crops
don’t yield better results, but push the farmers into debt. They
lose their sovereign right over seeds as they are forced to buy
GM seeds and technologies from multinational corporations.
The increasing incidence of suicide by farmers cultivating Bt
cotton is cited as an example of the perils of GM crops in a
country such as India. Besides the suspect merits of GM crops,
what the opponents also say is that once they are released into
the environment, it’s irreversible.
26. Food Supply at Risk
• GMO seeds are patented products and, in order to purchase
them, customers have to sign certain agreements for use with
the supplier or creator. As the reliance on these seeds expands
around the world, concerns about food supply and safety also
continue to arise. Furthermore, these seeds structurally
identical, and if a problem affects one of them, a major crop
failure can occur.
27. Risk Assessment
• In general, the risks associated with transgenic crops are potential risks.
However, research results provide emerging parameters to evaluate the relative
magnitude of the potential risk. For example, good evidence is emerging that
the combination of natural promiscuity regarding gene flow among crop
varieties and engineered herbicide resistance is a serious concern. Likewise, it
is becoming clearer that herbicide tolerant crops will probably not create
‘superweeds’ through crop-wild flow of genes that enable plants to tolerate
particular herbicides. Rather weed problems will be enhanced by the selection
of resistant weed populations through increased use of herbicides tied to
particular transgenic crops, such as glyphosate-resistant soybeans. Research
efforts should concentrate on the latter potential risks. Also of concern is the
enhanced weediness of wild relatives of crops from the flow of genes enabling
plants to resist insects and viruses. However, the research to evaluate the
extent of these risks is incomplete.
28. • More study is needed to assess the potential for the widespread
adoption by farmers of insect-resistant sunflower and virus-resistant
squash to promote the development of wild plants with improved fitness
relative to other wild plants. The improved fitness of particular plants in
wild populations could alter plant and animal ecosystems. The controversy
over the potential for Bt corn to harm monarch butterfly populations also
illustrates the need to move beyond laboratory studies to comprehensive
field scale when assessing the potential negative impact on
susceptible but beneficial populations. That is, studies that account
for the temporal and spatial interaction between the introduced
technology and the organism of interest.
29. Conclusion
• The commercial applications of GM to horticultural crops lag far
behind those of agronomic crops. In some respects this is to be
expected, since the majority of research and investment has been
directed to commodities with the commercial value. For consumer
and quality traits, however, many of the most interesting applications
will be in horticultural crops (Clark et al., 2004). However, the major
impediment to horticultural biotechnology is the reluctance of the
market to accept and actively promote these products. The
development of products having compelling benefits for
producers, marketers and consumers must be required to
overcome this situation.
