Times of India: New Delhi:
Friday, April 26, 2013.
The
introduction of the controversial Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India
(BRAI) bill in the LokSabha by Science and Technology minister, Jaipal Reddy
has many civil society groups up in arms.
In 2011
groups like Aruna Roy led national campaign for people's right to information
(NCPRI) and the Coalition for GM- free India had vehemently opposed the bill
because of certain 'anti-transparency' provisions in the bill. Even before
these concerns were addressed, Reddy introduced the bill again recently.
One of the
serious flaws identified by these groups is that section 28 overrides the right
to information act. It says that the RTI act will not apply to confidential
commercial information available with the BRAI and that it will only make
information available if it considers being in public interest.
The BRAI was
conceived to replace the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) which
would focus on regulating research, manufacture, import and use of products of
modern biotechnology including genetically modified (GM) products.
Some
organizations are critical of the bill because there could be a 'conflict of
interest' as BRAI is set to be a single window approval mechanism for GM crops
in India. They say that BRAI which is be located within the Ministry of Science
and technology is seen to be a promoter of GM crops and that a 'promoter' may
not be a good 'regulator.'
"The
bill also lacks scientific bio-safety assessments at a time when there is
increasing scientific evidence that points to the adverse impacts of GM crops
on human health, biodiversity and farming. Many state governments and civil society
organizations are also agitated because of the absence of any decision making
roles for state government and clauses to over ride the RTI Act in the current
BRAI bill," says Shivani Shah, sustainable agriculture campaigner with
Greenpeace.
Kavita
Kuruganti of Alliance for Sustainable and Holistic Agriculture (ASHA) feels
that the government has been "extremely undemocratic" in its attitude
towards concerns raised by civil society groups. "The Parliamentary
Standing Committee on Agriculture had already conducted a detailed study of the
BRAI bill and all other regulations on GM crops in the country and concluded
that BRAI is not what we need. We need a Bio-safety Authority that can assess
the impact of these crops on health and biodiversity. We need something similar
to the Norwegian Gene Technology Act," she says. Kavita demanded that the
bill be withdrawn immediately.
On Thursday,
a lot of civil society and farmers groups also sent faxes to Jaipal Reddy's
office demanding the withdrawal of the bill.
The
Parliamentary Standing Committee on Agriculture in its August 2012 report
tabled in the Parliament had stated: "The Government have been for some
years now toying with the idea of a Biotechnology Regulatory Authority. The
Committee feel that regulating biotechnology is too small a focus in the vast
canvas of biodiversity, environment, human and livestock health, and a
multitude of other such related issues."
.JPG)
.JPG)
