|
: In an interview carried by this paper, Kiran Mazumdar Shaw, chairman of Biocon, expressed valid concerns over the regulatory hurdles facing the biotechnology sector. She rightly described the framework as “cumbersome...and...slow” and even though she did not mention the stiff norms concerning animal studies in the laboratory, she did touch upon the illiberal import norms governing biological samples and the regrettable controversy surrounding clinical trials. However, it was the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) — which oversees commercial approval for genetically modified crops in India — that was rightly singled out for heavy-duty criticism. Indeed, GEAC’s ad hoc and non-transparent decision-making has reduced the existing three-tier approval system (a theoretically sound one) to a farce. And it is to address these concerns that the M S Swaminathan committee will submit its report at the end of this month.
Policymakers must now guard against equating the reform agenda with giving a free hand to industry. Instead, the need is for ushering in consistency and transparency in decision-making, as well as empowering the user of technology. First and foremost, we need an informed national debate so as to restore confidence of stakeholders and, indeed, clarify the official policy on GM crops. Rushing into a completely new system — that of a single window for clearances — without restoring damaged credibility is bound to add to existing concerns. Equally necessary is the need for sound science to prevail, not bureaucratic powerplay. This should translate into a specific amendment of existing policy: That once a modified gene is approved for a particular crop, various ministries need not reinvent the wheel for different varieties of that crop. We require disclosure of data upon which regulators base their approvals. We need publicly spelled out deadlines which regulators will be required to adhere to. We need consistency in decision-making, and not the ad hocism evident in the Bt cotton saga. We need an accountable GEAC, not one which sees its chairman change five times in one year, and not one which meets irregularly. We need a rationalisation of the framework wherein the regulator limits itself to health and environmental concerns, and not the economic viability of GM crops. The latter must be the farmer’s prerogative. And, as in every other sphere, we need good governance — that is, the sound implementation of law.
More from Edits & Columns
Discuss this story on expressindia forums
|
|
 |
 |
 |
About Us | Contact Us | Advertisers | Site Map | Make us your homepage | Work for Us | RSS | Subscribe | Electronic Edition | Privacy Policy© 2009: The Indian Express Limited. All rights reserved throughout the world
