A landmark judgment pertaining to the issue of bio-safety of transgenic crops by agro-biotech companies has been hailed as a victory for the Right to Information Act

The Central Information Commission (CIC), on April 13, 2007, directed the Department of Bio-Technology (DBT) to disclose information on data generated from tests carried out on genetically modified crops. Chief Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah delivered this right to information verdict in response to a petition filed by the environmental civil society organisation, Greenpeace India, after the Review Committee on Genetic Modification (RCGM) had consistently refused to divulge the information.

Divya Raghunandan of Greenpeace India said the victory is in keeping with the spirit of the RTI, and has strengthened the "RTI as a tool to building a participatory democracy".

Activists believe that genetically modified (GM) crops are responsible for a host of illnesses ranging from allergies in human beings to the death of sheep that eat the crop. Field trials of GM brinjal, okra, rice and mustard have been on for almost a year.

In February 2005, Greenpeace India requested the Review Committee of Genetic Modification to make public where the field trials were being conducted, and the toxicity and allergenicity data on four GM crops along with the minutes of meetings held between 2005 and 2006.

Although the DBT did disclose the locations of the field trials, it withheld data on toxicity and allergenicity, under Section 8.1 (d), saying the information was confidential and that disclosure of intellectual property and trade secrets could harm the competitive position of the third party. The DBT added that the information was under evaluation and therefore could not be disclosed.

This has led to questions in the media about whether the DBT is guilty of promoting the commercial interests of multinationals and pushing GM crops at the cost of public health and bio-safety.

In its hearing before the CIC, Greenpeace's Raghunandan emphasised certain published scientific papers that point to the environmental safety risks involved in field trials of genetically modified crops.

Delivering his verdict, Habibullah pointed out that the applicant's request for the results of toxicity and allergenicity tests on genetically modified rice, mustard, okra and brinjal could not be refused under the RTI Act. Any further grounds for non-disclosure are invalid even if the data in reference is in the process of development. The information was directed to be disclosed under Section 4 (1) (d) of the RTI Act, which states, "provide reasons for its administrative or quasi judicial decisions to affected persons".

Supreme Court advocate Prashant Bhushan who appeared before the CIC on behalf of Greenpeace India said that the commission's order was significant, as past experience showed that the RCGM had not used the right kind of protocol for bio-safety testing.

The Central Information Commission, in its verdict, however, ruled that the RCGM need not disclose the details of its official meetings.

Bhushan later said: "There is a conflict of interest. People on the board of the GEAC and Committees of Biotech, they are also on the board of the same multinationals seeking patents."

Source: wwwibnlive.com, April 15, 2007
wwwthehindu.com, April 15, 2007
wwwfinancialexpress.com, April 13, 2007