The concept of genetically modified (GM) crops has long been controversial in India. While critics raise ecological concerns and socioeconomic implications, proponents argue that such crops solve persistent agricultural challenges. The latest flashpoint in this debate is the GM mustard implementation in India, centering on Dhara Mustard Hybrid-11 (DMH-11), a genetically modified variety approved by the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) in 2022. The controversy remains unresolved, with the Supreme Court still deliberating on petitions challenging its rollout.

What is GM Mustard?

The University of Delhi‘s Centre for Genetic Manipulation of Crop Plants created the hybrid mustard variety known as DMH-11. It is the result of crossing two strains of mustard, “Early Heera-2” and “Varuna.” Three genes were added to enable this cross: bar, barnase, and barstar.

Both the barstar and barnase genes, which come from Bacillus amyloliquefaciens, cause temporary male sterility and make hybrid seeds fertile again. Conversely, the bar gene confers tolerance to the herbicide glufosinate.

The barnase-barstar system facilitates hybridization since mustard is a naturally self-pollinating plant. This genetic intervention’s proponents contend that it might increase yields and reduce reliance on imported edible oils.

Also Read: How Women Farmers Are Redefining Sustainability And Farming In Rural India

Regulatory Timeline and Legal Proceedings

In 2022, the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) authorized the environmental release of genetically modified mustard, marking a pivotal step in the GM mustard implementation in India. Yet, the move was challenged legally. At the request of environment groups, the Supreme Court revisited the Centre’s decision in July 2024 and set a new date of hearing for April 15, 2025. The Court also ordered the Centre to frame a full-fledged national policy on genetically engineered crops, including research, production, trade, and commerce.

There has been criticism that the GEAC’s decision was based largely on foreign studies, pointing to the shortage of strong Indigenous research and the lack of public access to biosafety assessments.

Arguments in Favor

Proponents of genetically modified mustard, including researchers like Deepak Pental, who worked on its creation, think the crop might greatly increase output. According to him, if the crop works well in their fields, farmers have expressed interest in adopting it. He said that the technology has been rigorously tested and has been used for decades around the world.

Proponents claim that because of the yield gains, 90–95% of GM crops have been adopted wherever they have been distributed. Additionally, they assert that GM mustard might help farmers financially and reduce India’s reliance on imported edible oil.

Also Read: Innovative Uses Of Agricultural Waste: From Biofuel To Packaging

Concerns and Opposition

Despite the arguments in favor, the GM mustard implementation in India has faced substantial criticism. Opponents are concerned that genetically altered mustard may cross with close wild relatives, resulting in herbicide-resistant weeds and threatening biodiversity. Environmentalists especially worry about the bar gene, which provides tolerance for herbicides, and that it will promote excessive application of glufosinate, risking pollinator damage and soil quality.

Activists frequently point to the Bt cotton experience as a lesson. Introduced to fight pink bollworms, the pest soon developed resistance. Subsequently, cotton blossoms produced less nectar, causing honey production to fall, with farmers turning towards higher pesticide consumption.

Over two decades, yields have primarily stagnated, and even a government affidavit acknowledged Bt cotton’s role in contributing to farmer suicides. Despite these issues, the cost of Bt cotton seeds has continued to rise.

According to Kavitha Kuruganti of the Coalition for a GM-Free India, GM mustard represents every risk connected to genetically modified crops. She cited the 2012 Supreme Court report by the Technical Expert Committee (TEC), which suggested that herbicide-tolerant crops be prohibited because of health, environmental, and financial issues.

Farmer and Policy Impacts

One of the main objections is the reliance that GM crops place on seed corporations. According to Agriculture Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan, clarity is required about patent ownership and pricing regulation. He contended that without this, farmers might not gain from adoption.

Activists also assert that India does not have legal procedures for assessing crops resistant to herbicides. According to some experts, the GEAC’s reliance on a subcommittee for its review compromises its legal legitimacy and transparency. Additionally, there hasn’t been much public involvement, which is required under the Cartagena Protocol, to which India has acceded.

Also Read: Farmers Prioritize Vanilla Cultivation Amid Market Volatility While Emphasizing Sustainable Land Use

Looking Forward: What Needs to Be Done?

Before proceeding with the GM mustard implementation in India, experts have emphasized the need for clear and comprehensive regulatory guidelines. According to them, public consultations, independent scientific evaluation, and transparency must be the building blocks. Meanwhile, there is a mounting demand for returning to traditional varieties, usually of the public domain, that are stress-resistant and richer in nutrients. It is contended by their champions that these open-source seeds reflect more of the spirit of farmers’ rights and food sovereignty.

In Conclusion

The debate surrounding GM mustard implementation in India reflects a broader conflict between ecological sustainability and technological advancement. While there are predictions of higher productivity and decreased reliance on oil imports of food items, the initiative also raises some key environmental, social, and legal issues. Although the country faces this controversial endeavor, farmers’ rights must be ensured, research by scientists must be transparent, and a practical regulatory framework must be put in place before any countrywide implementation is attempted.

Also Read: Farmers Alarmed As UK Freezes Sustainable Farming Funds, Threatening Nature Restoration Efforts