The article mainly deals with the complications involved in the regulation of genetically modified (GM) technology in India by comparing it with the regulatory mechanisms developed in the USA and the European Union (EU). The only GM crop that has been approved for commercial cultivation in India is Bt cotton. It has been observed that apart from Bt cotton, whenever the Indian regulatory bodies tried to approve any other GM food crops, protests have erupted from several sections of the Indian civil society. As a result, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) has been compelled to take political decision of not to allow GM crops for commercial cultivation. This led to the increase in the political conflict among supporters and detractors of GM crop technology. Both the USA and the EU have explicitly established either product-based or process-based regulatory approaches. But in India, the regulation is still evolving. In that respect, this article highlights some of the existing regulatory loopholes and kinds of confusions that prevail in Indian regulatory system.
AndersonK., & JacksonL. A. (2006). Transgenic crops, EU precaution, and developing countries. International Journal of Technology and Globalization, 2(1/2), 65–80.
2.
AnuradhaR. V. (2005). Regulatory and governance issues relating to genetically modified crops and food: An India case study. New York, NY: Case Study for the New York University Project on International Governance of Genetically Modified Organisms.
3.
GuptaA. (2000). Governing biosafety in India: The relevance of the Cartagena protocol. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Belfer Center for Science & International Affairs, Global Environmental Assessment Project: Environment and Natural Resources.
4.
Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) (2004, April). Regulatory regime for genetically modified foods: The way ahead. New Delhi: Indian Council of Medical Research. Retrieved from http://icmr.nic.in/reg_regimen.pdf
5.
IsaacG. E. (2002). Agricultural biotechnology and transatlantic trade: Regulatory barriers to GM crops. Oxon and New York, NY: CABI.
6.
Lianchawii (2005). Biosafety in India: Rethinking GMO regulation. Economic and Political Weekly, 40(39), 4284–4289.
7.
Ministry of Environment and Forests (1986). The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. New Delhi: Ministry of Environment and Forests, Department of Environment, Forests and Wildlife, Government of India. Retrieved from http://www.envfor.nic.in/legis/env/eprotect_act_1986.pdf
8.
NavneetA. (2014). A co-dynamic model to frame controversies over genetically modified crops in India. Asian Biotechnology and Development Review, 16(3), 61–85.
9.
NavneetA. (2018). Policymaking in the context of contestations: GM technology debate in India. Studies in Indian Politics, 6(1), 117–131.
10.
NestmannE., CopelandT., & HlywkaJ. (2002). The regulatory and science-based safety evaluation of genetically modified food crops: A USA perspective. In AthertonK. T. (Ed.), Genetically modified crops: Assessing safety (pp. 1–44). London, UK and New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
11.
NewellP. (2003). Biotech firms, biotech politics: Negotiating GMOs in India (IDS Working Paper No. 201). Brighton and Sussex: Institute of Development Studies.
12.
PollackM. A., & ShafferG. C. (2009). When cooperation fails: The international law and politics of genetically modified foods. Oxford, UK and New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
13.
PrayC. E., BengaliP., & RamaswamiB. (2005). The cost of biosafety regulations: The Indian experience. Quaterly Journal of International Agriculture, 44(3), 267–289.
14.
SahaiS. (2002). Can India handle GM technology? Suman Sahai Blog. Retrieved from sumansahai-blog.blogspot.com/2002/12/can-india-handle-gm-technology.html
15.
SalatN. V., SalterB., & SmetsG. (2010, September). International multi-level governance of GMOs: The EU, USA and Indian cases. London, UK: Work Package 6, Activity 6.1, King’s College.
16.
SchauzuM. (2011). The European Union’s regulatory framework: Developments in legislation, safety assessment, and public perception. In BaramM. & BourrierM. (Eds.), Governing risk in GM agriculture (pp. 57–84). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17.
ScoonesI. (2006). Science, agriculture and the politics of policy: The case of biotechno-logy in India. New Delhi: Orient Longman Private Limited.
18.
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2000). Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity: Text and annexes. Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Retrieved from www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cartagena-protocol-en.pdf
19.
SharmaA.B. (2010, April5). India needs biosafety authority, not biotech authority. d-sector.org: Making sense of development. Retrieved from http://www.d-sector.org/article-det.asp?id=1149
20.
SprinkT., ErikssonD., SchiemannJ., & HartungF. (2016). Regulatory hurdles for genome editing: process—Vs. product based approaches in different regulatory context. Plant Cell Reports, 35(7), 1493–1506.
21.
TaitJ. (2001). More faust than Frankenstein: The European debate about the precautionary principle and risk regulation for genetically modified crops. Journal of Risk Research, 4(2), 175–189.
22.
TokeD. (2004). The politics of GM food: A comparative study of the UK, USA and EU. London, UK and New York, NY: Routledge.
23.
TomlinsonN. (2002). The regulatory requirements for novel foods: A European perspective. In AthertonK. T. (Ed.), Genetically modified crops: Assessing safety (pp. 45–62). London, UK and New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
