Should the Bt Brinjal controversy concern healthcare professionals and bioethicists.

ABSTRACT

The Genetic Engineering Approval Committee’s approval of Bt brinjal, the first genetically modified crop for human consumption in India, has sparked off protests across the country. This article questions the so-called benefits of GM crops and highlights some major concerns. These include inadequately addressed health and environmental risks, inadequate safety guidelines, a lack of transparency in sharing test data, the implications to seed sovereignty of farmers and the lack of informed choice for consumers. Some concerns about field testing by Mahyco, the developer of Bt-brinjal, and the process of evaluation by GEAC remain unresolved. With inadequate information about the crop’s long-term safety, a precautionary approach is advocated before national policy allows commercial release of the seeds. A fair process is also needed in the public consultations being proposed by the minister of state for environment and forests. In addition to issues of procedural justice, a basic ethical question remains do humans have a right to dominate the land and make expendable those creatures that they deem “undesirable”? On October 15, 2009, the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) of the ministry of environment, the regulatory body for approving genetically modified crops (GM crops) in India, approved Bt brinjal, the first GM crop for human consumption in India, for commercial use (1,2). The approval came following the review of reports submitted by the Maharashstra Hybrid Seeds Company Limited (Mahyco), the Indian subsidiary of the US-based company Monsanto, that uses biotechnology to produce high yielding, pest resistant crops. The Tamil Nadu Agriculture University and the University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, were partners of Mahyco in the development of Bt brinjal. Bt Brinjal is a genetically modified plant in which a gene from the soil bacterium bacillus thuringensis is inserted into the genome of the brinjal, which can then produce a protein, Cry1Ac. This protein behaves as a toxin against the shoot and fruit borer (SFB), a pest that commonly affects brinjal. The gene modification also includes the addition of two antibiotic resistance marker genes. Some media reports have been upbeat about the GEAC’s approval (3), but the decision also sparked off protests. Environmental and health concerns were cited that extend to other GM crops in the pipeline like GM tomatoes, GM potatoes, GM cabbage, etc. Doubts have been raised about the science used in the technology as COMMENT s Should the Bt Brinjal controversy concern healthcare professionals and bioethicists? Sridevi Seetharam Swami Vivekananda Youth Movement, Saragur, H D Kote Taluk, Mysore District 571 121 INDIA email desusridevi@gmail.com well as the interpretation of biosafety tests. The GEAC’s decision needs to be ratified by the minister of state for environment and forests, Jairam Ramesh, before it becomes policy. Mr Ramesh announced that a series of consultations with scientists, agricultural experts, farmers’ organisations, consumer groups and non-governmental organisations would be held in January and February 2010 before a final decision is taken in March 2010 (4). It is unclear whether healthcare professionals will also have a voice in these consultations. The ethics of gene manipulations in the animal and human reproductive sciences, their clinical applications, and the impact on people’s aspirations and life choices have been debated extensively by the healthcare professions. Genetic interventions in the food that we eat also affect our health, aspirations and life choices. As a healthcare professional concerned with bioethics, I decided to explore this controversy. Numerous and diverse issues emerged as I explored.