14.2 The Committee
considered the following suggestions received from various
stakeholders:
-
More number of locations
and 1 year of LST is preferable rather than less number
of locations and 2 yrs LST. The prescribed 80 locations
per zone may therefore continue.
-
The number of locations
for H x H hybrids can be reduced to 20 trials in south
zone, 40 trials in central zone and 20 trials in north
zone
-
1 year LST for a gene
which has completed all Biosafety and other requirements
is enough. 1 yr additional LST will encourages monopoly
and thus expensive seeds for farmer.
-
LST should be uniform for
all cases and there should be no concession for CVRC
notified hybrids.
-
There is no scientific
logic that a new transgenic Bt cotton encoding a Cry 1Ac
‘ micro-variant’ needs 1 yr LST whereas another new
transgenic cotton encoding Cry 1Ab or Cry1Aa must go
through 2 yrs of LST.
-
1year of MLT, 2 years of
ICAR and 1 year of extensive LST is adequate.
-
Non bt counter parts of
the new bt hybrids may not be required as companies are
developing new hybrids where the parental line contains
the Bt gene. Therefore there will be no non Bt counter
part.
-
The policy of including a
national and local check in MLT/LST may be reviewed.
14.3 The Committee
noted that the number of locations proposed by the
Sub-Committee is rational as it takes into consideration the
agro-climatic zones and area under cotton cultivation in
each zone. Views were expressed that the Company should
provide a detailed justification for the selected locations.
14.4 The Committee
further noted that GEAC is following a case-by-case approval
of each hybrid and therefore the Sub-Committee’s
recommendation in respect of GEAC released gene/event needs
reconsideration.
14.5 The Committee also
considered the three – protocols for field testing of Bt
cotton and noted that the procedure outlined in Protocol-
III which stipulates. 1 year MLT followed by years of LST
and 2 years of ICAR testing in tandem should be applicable
in all cases as interpretation of data based on 1 year LST
will not provide any scientific conclusion. However, some
Members were of the view that a CVRC notified hybrid/variety
has been extensively field tested for agronomic performance
and its suitability for a particular zone and therefore 1
year of LST and 1 year of ICAR testing is adequately
provided, the Company is able to submit documentary evidence
through DNA finger printing that the transgenic Bt cotton
hybrid / variety is equivalent to its non-Bt counter part.
14.6 After a brief
discussion on the above issues, it was decided to
re-consider the matter in the next GEAC meeting.
15.0 Alternate Mechanism for
Multi-location and Large-scale field trials of transgenic
crops by the State Agricultural Universities.
15.1 The Committee
considered the views received from the State Departments of
Agriculture and SAU’s in respect of the ‘Alternate
Monitoring Mechanism’ to evaluate the field trials of Bt
Cotton and noted that the State Governments and SAU’s have
‘in principal’ agreed with the concept of evaluating the
field trials through the SAU’s provided adequate financial
mechanism is put in place. The Committee also considered
some suggestions on the composition of the monitoring team,
frequency of monitoring and parameters to be monitored.
15.2 The Committee
was of the view that the proposed monitoring Mechanism can
be made effective only if there is a representation from the
Central Government/GEAC to coordinate and harmonise between
different monitoring teams spread over the State. It was
suggested that two experts (representatives of the
GEAC/RCGM) should be included in the Monitoring team and one
of the Experts should be appointed as the ‘Head’ of the
Monitoring team. The representative of SAU should be the
convener.
15.3 Regarding
the financial mechanism, the Committee was of the view that
is not advisable for the Company to pay directly to the
SAU’s for evaluating the field trials. It was agreed that a
Central agency may be identified to institute the financial
mechanism and co-ordination of the fields trials through the
SAU’s. The Committee requested DBT to consider the above
suggestions and submit a revised proposal for consideration
of the GEAC in the next meeting.
15.4 In view of the
above, decision on the proposed ‘Alternate Monitoring
Mechanism’ was deferred.
