[Answered] The contentious approval of GM mustard (DMH-11) highlights India’s challenge in balancing health concerns with potential economic and nutritional benefits. Analyze the governance and policy dilemmas in regulating genetically modified crops, ensuring scientific rigor, public safety, and agricultural sustainability.

Introduction

The controversy over India’s indigenously developed genetically modified (GM) mustard — Dhara Mustard Hybrid-11 (DMH-11) — reflects the complex intersection of science, health, economy, and governance. While DMH-11 promises higher yields and lower erucic acid content in mustard oil, concerns persist over its biosafety, ecological impact, and regulatory transparency. India, being a signatory to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, must balance scientific advancement with public confidence, environmental sustainability, and constitutional accountability.

Scientific and Economic Significance of DMH-11

1. Nutritional and Health Benefits: Traditional mustard oil in India contains 40-54% erucic acid, well above the <5% global safety threshold. High levels are linked to cardiac and liver issues in animal studies. DMH-11 reduces erucic acid to 30-35%, aligning it closer to international standards and potentially improving public health.
2. Economic Advantage: India is the world’s largest importer of edible oils, with an import bill exceeding $20 billion (NITI Aayog, 2024). A high-yield, low-erucic acid mustard could reduce this burden. Higher domestic yields (by 25-30%) also align with the government’s goal of doubling farmers’ income and achieving oilseed self-reliance (Atmanirbharata).
3. Agronomic Merits: DMH-11 uses the barnase-barstar gene system for hybrid vigour, enabling higher productivity. Trials by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) suggest yield gains without adverse agro-ecological impact.

Governance and Regulatory Dilemmas

1. Regulatory Fragmentation: India’s biotech governance is overseen by multiple bodies — GEAC (Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee), FSSAI, and the Environment Ministry — leading to overlaps, delays, and lack of coordination. The Supreme Court (2024) withheld environmental release, citing insufficient health impact assessments, exposing regulatory gaps.
2. Lack of Transparency and Public Participation: Critics allege non-disclosure of full biosafety data, limited stakeholder consultations, and inadequate risk communication, fueling distrust. Civil society and farmer groups demand independent, peer-reviewed evidence, not solely developer-led trials.
3. Policy Inconsistency: While Bt cotton is widely cultivated (95% of India’s cotton area), GM food crops like brinjal and mustard face moratoriums, reflecting incoherence in biotech policy. The absence of a comprehensive GM crop policy or biosafety law further complicates approvals and oversight.

Balancing Risks and Sustainability

1. Scientific Rigor: Robust, multi-location, long-term field trials with transparent data sharing must be institutionalized. An autonomous biosafety authority, as recommended by the Parliamentary Standing Committee (2017), could ensure credibility and insulation from political influence.
2. Environmental Concerns: Cross-pollination risks to wild relatives of mustard, impact on pollinators (especially bees), and herbicide tolerance traits demand ecological risk management.
3. Alternative Approaches: Conventional breeding, CRISPR-based gene editing, and marker-assisted selection (non-transgenic) can offer safer and publicly acceptable alternatives.

Conclusion

The DMH-11 episode epitomizes the challenges of integrating science with policy in a democratic, diverse society. India needs a coherent, transparent, and evidence-based regulatory framework that encourages innovation while safeguarding public health, ecology, and farmers’ rights. Trust-building through scientific integrity and participatory governance is crucial for the sustainable adoption of GM technology.