The apex court nod to GM seed trials raises issues. GM seeds: Trial's not yet over Globally, the market for genetically modified (GM) seeds is estimated at Rs 25,215 crore. In India, where such seeds are seen with suspicion, it's barely worth Rs 697 crore a year, according to industry estimates. Also, the area under gm crops globally is 102 million hectares as against 3.8 million hectares in India. But thanks to the Supreme Court's May 8 ruling, that's about to change. "The doors that were locked till now have been opened," beams R.K. Sinha, Executive Director, All India Crop Biotechnology Association, a national lobby of companies engaged in agricultural biotechnology (mostly seed companies). In September last year, the apex court had imposed an interim ban on field trials and subsequent marketing of gm seeds, following a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by activist Aruna Rodrigues. Having heard arguments from both gm seed manufacturers and the petitioner, the Supreme Court has decided that gm seed trials of previously approved seeds can go on, provided certain conditions are fulfilled. It's here where the problem lies. The main concern relating to gm seeds is the release of potentially dangerous living organisms into the environment (unlike in pharmaceuticals, where experiments are conducted in a closed and controlled laboratory environment). What the court now says is that trials will be permitted in the case of seeds already approved by the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), but such trials must meet certain conditions. Those include an increase in isolation distance of up to 200 metres between the fields with gm crop and those with ordinary crop; the establishment of a protocol for testing for contamination up to 0.01 per cent for neighbouring fields; the appointment of a dedicated crop scientist to oversee and ensure bio-safety in each case by ensuring that all conditions are met during the trials. "We are not worried about the conditions, since GEAC already has protocols, which will only have to be strengthened now," says Sinha. Alas, if only things were that simple. Critics say that these stipulations don't mean much since the responsibility of ensuring compliance is with the companies themselves, and not some independent third party. Also, they point out that some desperate farmers may be willing to violate the field separation norms and thus expose other fields to unknown dangers. At any rate, they say, various studies abroad have shown that even a 200-metre separation may not be enough to prevent cross-pollination. (Norms for crop separation differ from crop to crop, and the actual risk of cross-pollination would depend on several ground-level factors such as speed and direction of wind, among others.) "While we are happy that certain norms have been laid down, the very fact that they were needed, points to the lacuna in monitoring gm seed trials," says Divya Raghunandan, a campaign manager at Greenpeace. "There is little clarity on the mechanisms to implement the court norms." Take, for instance, the case of a designated scientist to ensure bio-safety. How will any resulting liability be handled? Will the scientist be held responsible or will the seed company take the hit? Meanwhile, all eyes are now on GEAC and its scheduled meeting on May 11, where it will take a call on further approvals. "Around 40 gm cotton hybrids are pending approval and all incorporate the already approved four genetic events (industry jargon for kind of genetic manipulation with the DNA)," says Sinha. Presuming the conditions do not apply to them (as large-scale trials are believed to be over), they could hit the market in the near future. For the others where field trials are not yet complete or are yet to happen, the going may not be easy. For one, there are bound to be issues in adhering to the Supreme Court-set norms. For another, Aruna Rodgrigues, who filed the original PIL, intends to keep an eye on the trials. This battle is far from over. -E. Kumar Sharma