Supreme Court examines environmental impact of GM mustard

The Supreme Court held off on deciding pleas for a moratorium on the release of genetically modified organisms (GMs) Mustard into the environment. The case was heard by a bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Sanjay Karol, with submissions made by Attorney General R Venkataramani, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, and advocates Prashant Bhushan and senior advocate Sanjay Parikh.

All parties have been asked by the court to submit their written arguments by January 22. The court has observed that the issue of genetically modified crops is highly technical and scientific and will base its decision on the environmental release of GM mustard on what is best for the country.

Supreme court had previously questioned the Centre as to why the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) did not consider the reports of the court-appointed Technical Experts Committee (TEC) on the biosafety of GM crops. The court asked if the GEAC or a sub-committee of experts had ever reviewed the TEC reports before approving the environmental release of the transgenic mustard hybrid DMH-11 on October 25, 2022.

The Attorney General, representing the Centre, stated that the GEAC, being a statutory body, is not required to review these reports but has considered all relevant scientific findings before approving the environmental release.

The court is currently hearing separate pleas from activist Aruna Rodrigues and NGO ‘Gene Campaign’, who are seeking a moratorium on the release of any GMOs into the environment until a thorough, transparent, and rigorous biosafety protocol is conducted by independent expert bodies and made public.

Court halts trials after intervention

Mehta argued on January 18 that they have scheduled open-field trials to take place in eight locations, each with a plot of 400-500 metres, under close supervision. He told the court that this procedure is compulsory and stated, “The petitioners must satisfy the court about what they would gain or where the public interest lies in restricting trials at the remaining two sites.

The court had imposed a halt on environmental trials after the petitioners sought the intervention of the apex court in the matter.

Mehta mentioned that India imports and consumes substantial quantities of edible oil derived from GM oilseeds. He stated, “We should produce indigenous products to ensure food security and decrease dependency on foreign market imports.

He added that the court holds custody of rights, mentioning, “On one side it has the alleged environmental impact...on the other, people's right to basic foods (edible oil).” The bench announced their thorough listening to the arguments presented by the learned counsels for the petitioners, the attorney general, and others, and that they are yet to pass judgment."

Keep Reading

• How retreat of Machoi glacier impacting lives in Kashmir?
• Hathiya Kheda: Four Villages In MP Waiting For Roads
• “Give Plastic, Take Gold” Initiative In Sadiwara Village Of Kashmir

Follow Ground Report for Environment and Under-Reported issues in India. Connect with us on Facebook, Twitter, Koo App, Instagram, Whatsapp and YouTube. Write us on [email protected].