The Political Economy of Adoption of GM Rice Technology in India
India set to embrace GM rice
1
BUSINESS AND REGULATORY NEWS www.nature.com/naturebiotechnology • FEBRUARY 2003 • VOLUME 21 • nature biotechnology 117 I ndia’s apex body of agricultural scientists has given the go-ahead for the widespread introduction of genetically modified (GM) varieties of rice, lifting the gloom in the biotech industry cast by government inde- cision over GM mustard (Nat. Biotechnol. 21, 9, 2003). “With a need for an additional 50% more rice by the year 2030, we need rice varieties with higher yield and greater yield stability. We should use all the tools at our disposal to meet these challenges,” a spokesperson for the New Delhi–based National Academy of Agricultural Sciences (NAAS) said while releasing the recom- mendations of a workshop held in Chennai to discuss the biosafety issues of transgenic rice. Although the workshop took place during October 27–30, 2002, the final rec- ommendations were officially released only at the end of December 2002. The academy, the largest body of profes- sional agricultural researchers in India, has endorsed development of rice varieties tolerant to drought, submergence, and salinity, and rich in micronutrients. Transgenes encoding products such as Bt (already introduced in cotton varieties released in India last year) can also be put in rice for pest resistance. However, the academy has discouraged work on trans- genic rice varieties that produce drugs and pharmaceuticals, apparently to avoid unnecessary risks with a crop that is the staple of India’s diet. Swiss-based Syngenta (Basel), which has a major rice program in India, is expected to be pleased with the recommendations. According to Pawan Malik, president of the seeds division of Syngenta India, the com- pany is working in collaboration with as many as 35 institutions in India, including the Pant University of Agriculture and Technology at Pantnagar and the Konkan Agricultural University in Dapoli. The academy’s full support for GM rice came after the workshop dispelled the fears of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that releasing transgenic varieties in a “center of origin of rice” would risk contaminating the land races, as reportedly happened with maize in Mexico. Although the workshop admits that “the potential of gene flow in rice does exist,” Virendra Lal Chopra, president of NAAS says, “it did not identify any scientifically valid environ- mental or ecological impact” of transgenes on the center of diversity. Although agreeing with this, Suman Sahai, convener of Gene Campaign, an NGO that opposed the introduction of Bt cotton in India last year, says the question of genetic pollution “must be addressed for transgenic rice through appropriate regu- latory oversight, on a case-by-case basis.” Meanwhile, “The NAAS recommenda- tions are a shot in the arm for biotech research,” says E.A. Siddiq, formerly deputy director general of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research and a workshop par- ticipant. “Researchers who have been unsure if their work would enter field trials would be enthused.” One researcher is Akilesh Tyagi of Delhi University, whose salt-tolerant rice is ready for trials. At the International Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology in New Delhi, Madan Mohan and colleagues have developed a variety resistant to attack by “gall midge,” a major pest of rice world- wide. “We will have a gall midge-resistant transgenic plant growing in our lab in three months,” he says, adding that he does not anticipate any NGO opposition because “we have only transferred a gene from one rice to another.” However, this is not the case with vitamin A–rich golden rice, which contains genes from bacteria. Gurumurthi Natarajan, a biotechnology consultant in Chennai, says that, under the recommendations, applica- tion of golden rice “must be reviewed through the regulatory process, keeping in view the social, political, and cultural impli- cations.” Although the Indian government has decided to introduce golden rice, “we have made sure that golden rice will not contain antibiotic markers,”says Siddiq. According to NAAS, lack of a scientifi- cally sound regulatory review process is one critical factor that might limit the real- ization of the numerous proven and poten- tial benefits of GM rice. Therefore it has called for “a transparent regulatory process and appropriate regulatory oversight based on sound scientific information.” K.S. Jayaraman, New Delhi, India India set to embrace GM rice research come from biologists. “It is up to those of us within the scientific community and the community of life science publish- ers to define the standards and to establish the right framework—one that can ensure that critical information is withheld from terrorists while still permitting the contin- ued advancement of biomedical research,” he says. In general, officials in the Bush Administration, including National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice and White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) director John Marburger, agree. For instance, they explic- itly affirm a two-decade-old policy general- ly favoring open scientific research. However, federal law imposing export con- trols enables officials to restrict distribu- tions of sensitive technologies and equip- ment. Other provisions in recently passed laws, and in other statutes allowing for secrecy over patented technology, provide additional authority for restricting disclo- sure or use of research findings, even those obtained within the private sector, and also limiting who may work on designated microorganisms. The anthrax scare following September 11 in 2001 (Nat. Biotechnol. 19, 998–1000; 2001) and several specific research reports in microbiology exacerbated national security–related concerns over research in biology, according to Parney Albright of the Office of Homeland Security and the OSTP. “The scientific community needs to develop and vet criteria for what is appropriate [biological] research…and needs a process for assessing the hard cases and handling unexpected results,” he says. “In the absence of criteria…and as papers come out, the public will look for a policy and, without it, will invite political action, which will probably be onerous and is likely to be ineffective…. The community has to get its act together, or someone will do it for you.” Jeffrey L. Fox, Washington, DC GM varieties of rice may soon be widely planted on the Indian subcontinent. © Monsanto © 2003 Nature Publishing Group http://www.nature.com/naturebiotechnology
Transcript of India set to embrace GM rice
BUSINESS AND REGULATORY NEWS
www.nature.com/naturebiotechnology • FEBRUARY 2003 • VOLUME 21 • nature biotechnology 117
India’s apex body of agricultural scientistshas given the go-ahead for the widespread
introduction of genetically modified (GM)varieties of rice, lifting the gloom in thebiotech industry cast by government inde-cision over GM mustard (Nat. Biotechnol.21, 9, 2003).
“With a need for an additional 50%more rice by the year 2030, we need ricevarieties with higher yield and greater yieldstability. We should use all the tools at ourdisposal to meet these challenges,” aspokesperson for the New Delhi–basedNational Academy of Agricultural Sciences(NAAS) said while releasing the recom-mendations of a workshop held in Chennaito discuss the biosafety issues of transgenicrice. Although the workshop took placeduring October 27–30, 2002, the final rec-ommendations were officially released onlyat the end of December 2002.
The academy, the largest body of profes-sional agricultural researchers in India, hasendorsed development of rice varieties tolerant to drought, submergence, andsalinity, and rich in micronutrients.Transgenes encoding products such as Bt(already introduced in cotton varietiesreleased in India last year) can also be putin rice for pest resistance. However, theacademy has discouraged work on trans-genic rice varieties that produce drugs andpharmaceuticals, apparently to avoidunnecessary risks with a crop that is thestaple of India’s diet.
Swiss-based Syngenta (Basel), which hasa major rice program in India, is expectedto be pleased with the recommendations.According to Pawan Malik, president of theseeds division of Syngenta India, the com-pany is working in collaboration with asmany as 35 institutions in India, includingthe Pant University of Agriculture and
Technology at Pantnagar and the KonkanAgricultural University in Dapoli.
The academy’s full support for GM ricecame after the workshop dispelled the fearsof non-governmental organizations(NGOs) that releasing transgenic varietiesin a “center of origin of rice” would riskcontaminating the land races, as reportedlyhappened with maize in Mexico. Althoughthe workshop admits that “the potential ofgene flow in rice does exist,” Virendra LalChopra, president of NAAS says, “it did notidentify any scientifically valid environ-mental or ecological impact” of transgeneson the center of diversity.
Although agreeing with this, SumanSahai, convener of Gene Campaign, anNGO that opposed the introduction of Btcotton in India last year, says the questionof genetic pollution “must be addressed fortransgenic rice through appropriate regu-latory oversight, on a case-by-case basis.”
Meanwhile, “The NAAS recommenda-tions are a shot in the arm for biotechresearch,” says E.A. Siddiq, formerly deputydirector general of the Indian Council ofAgricultural Research and a workshop par-ticipant. “Researchers who have beenunsure if their work would enter field trialswould be enthused.”
One researcher is Akilesh Tyagi of DelhiUniversity, whose salt-tolerant rice is readyfor trials. At the International Center forGenetic Engineering and Biotechnology inNew Delhi, Madan Mohan and colleagueshave developed a variety resistant to attackby “gall midge,” a major pest of rice world-wide. “We will have a gall midge-resistanttransgenic plant growing in our lab in threemonths,” he says, adding that he does notanticipate any NGO opposition because“we have only transferred a gene from onerice to another.”
However, this is not the case with vitaminA–rich golden rice, which contains genesfrom bacteria. Gurumurthi Natarajan, abiotechnology consultant in Chennai, saysthat, under the recommendations, applica-tion of golden rice “must be reviewedthrough the regulatory process, keeping inview the social, political, and cultural impli-cations.” Although the Indian governmenthas decided to introduce golden rice, “wehave made sure that golden rice will notcontain antibiotic markers,” says Siddiq.
According to NAAS, lack of a scientifi-cally sound regulatory review process isone critical factor that might limit the real-ization of the numerous proven and poten-tial benefits of GM rice. Therefore it hascalled for “a transparent regulatory processand appropriate regulatory oversight basedon sound scientific information.”
K.S. Jayaraman, New Delhi, India
India set to embrace GM rice
research come from biologists. “It is up tothose of us within the scientific communityand the community of life science publish-ers to define the standards and to establishthe right framework—one that can ensurethat critical information is withheld fromterrorists while still permitting the contin-ued advancement of biomedical research,”he says.
In general, officials in the BushAdministration, including NationalSecurity Advisor Condoleezza Rice andWhite House Office of Science andTechnology Policy (OSTP) director JohnMarburger, agree. For instance, they explic-itly affirm a two-decade-old policy general-ly favoring open scientific research.However, federal law imposing export con-trols enables officials to restrict distribu-tions of sensitive technologies and equip-ment. Other provisions in recently passedlaws, and in other statutes allowing forsecrecy over patented technology, provideadditional authority for restricting disclo-
sure or use of research findings, even thoseobtained within the private sector, and alsolimiting who may work on designatedmicroorganisms.
The anthrax scare following September11 in 2001 (Nat. Biotechnol. 19, 998–1000;2001) and several specific research reportsin microbiology exacerbated national security–related concerns over research inbiology, according to Parney Albright of theOffice of Homeland Security and the OSTP. “The scientific community needs todevelop and vet criteria for what is appropriate [biological] research…andneeds a process for assessing the hard casesand handling unexpected results,” he says.“In the absence of criteria…and as paperscome out, the public will look for a policyand, without it, will invite political action,which will probably be onerous and is likelyto be ineffective…. The community has toget its act together, or someone will do it for you.”
Jeffrey L. Fox, Washington, DC
GM varieties of rice may soon be widely plantedon the Indian subcontinent.
©M
onsa
nto
©20
03 N
atu
re P
ub
lish
ing
Gro
up
h
ttp
://w
ww
.nat
ure
.co
m/n
atu
reb
iote
chn
olo
gy
