[Introductory Note to the following CIC Decision: In 2010 the Environment Minister placed a moratorium on release of Bt Brinjal, which would have been the first genetically modified (GM) food crop in India – despite it having been cleared as ‘safe’ by the Regulator, the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC). This was done in the light of the analysis of the test data by scientists in India and abroad, who found many lacunae in the test results done by the applicant and accepted by the GEAC. There were also public hearings at 7 locations where the scientists as also consumers, farmers and NGOs could put their view point. Currently GM mustard has been through testing and may be cleared for release, but data was not being put in the public domain for analysis. An RTI application has resulted in the following landmark order]
GM mustard trials: CIC asks govt to reveal bio-safety data
The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed the environment ministry to reveal safety data regarding trials of genetically modified (GM) mustard without further delay, noting that “any attempt to postpone or delay the disclosure will block the public discussion” on the controversial issue.
In April, the information panel had pulled up the Union ministry of environment, forest and climate change (MoEFCC) over its lack of transparency on trials of GM crops and directed it to make public all information, including bio-safety data, related to the field trials of the GM mustard crop before 30 April.
The CIC also directed the ministry to put in the public domain bio-safety data pertaining to all other GMOs (genetically modified organisms) in the pipeline.
The CIC’s directions came on an application by environment activist Kavitha Kuruganti, who sought information regarding field trials of GM mustard from the MoEFCC, but was denied.
“Instead of furnishing information as ordered by 30 April 2016, the public authority requested for two more months. The public authority did not honour its own commitment to furnish in that time and on 28 June they sought another extension, this time for 90 days. To furnish a copy of a report or to place the agenda and minutes of the GEAC (Genetic Engineering Approval Committee) meeting, they need no time at all. They are just asking for time though they do not require it,” information commissioner M. Sridhar Acharyulu noted in his order.
He also held that there appears “to be no seriousness in seeking extension” and the environment ministry is “routinely asking for extension without specifying the period”.
In his order, Acharyulu said that the information sought is of “high public importance, concerning public health, and it should have been in (the) public domain”.
“Public authority is attempting to keep vital information out of public discussion. It amounts to prevention of constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech and expression of the appellant, who are interested in discussing the pros and cons of GMOrelated issues of GM mustard, which if permitted would cause serious impact on the public health of consumers on a large scale,” he said.
