GM crops and agricultural biotechnology

The first principle

Breeding has always changed the genes of crops, but only by mixing genes that two related plants already had, and it takes a decade or more to fix a trait. Genetic engineering removes both limits: a gene from any organism can be placed in a crop in a single step. That power is also the source of the whole debate, because a gene that never existed in a plant's family raises new questions of safety, ecology and ownership. Gene editing has now split the question in two, since a crop can be changed precisely without adding any foreign gene at all.

The core

How a GM crop is made

• A genetically modified (GM) or transgenic crop carries a gene from another species, put in through the soil bacterium Agrobacterium tumefaciens, which naturally transfers part of its DNA into plant cells, or by a gene gun that shoots DNA coated gold particles into plant tissue. Transformed cells are selected with a marker gene and grown into plants, and the best "event", the line in which the gene landed well and works, is bred into local varieties.
• Bt crops resist insects. Genes from Bacillus thuringiensis make crystal (Cry) proteins that are harmless until they reach the alkaline gut of particular caterpillars, where they are activated, bind to receptors on the gut lining and kill the insect; mammals, including humans, lack those receptors.
• Herbicide tolerant crops survive a weed killer. A gene lets the crop withstand a herbicide such as glyphosate or glufosinate, so a farmer can spray the whole field and kill only the weeds.
• Hybrid systems raise yield. A hybrid of two unrelated parents usually outyields both (hybrid vigour), but mustard pollinates itself, so a male sterile line is needed to force the cross; in DMH-11 the barnase gene makes one parent male sterile, the barstar gene in the other parent restores fertility in the hybrid, and the bar gene, which gives tolerance to glufosinate, is the marker that links them.

Gene editing: changing a crop without a foreign gene

• Site directed nucleases (SDN) are the editing tools such as CRISPR-Cas9, and edits are grouped by outcome: SDN 1 makes a small change at a chosen place without a template, usually switching a gene off; SDN 2 uses a short template to make a specific small change; and SDN 3 inserts a long piece of DNA, which may be foreign.
• SDN 1 and SDN 2 plants contain no foreign DNA once the editing machinery is bred out, and the change could in principle arise by natural mutation, which is why many regulators, including India's since 2022, do not treat them as genetically modified; SDN 3 remains under the GM rules.

Dimensions

• Economic. Bt cotton, approved in 2002, spread to well over 90 per cent of India's cotton area within about a decade and was followed by a large rise in cotton output and exports; India also imports more than half of the edible oil it uses, which is the main economic argument made for high yielding GM mustard.
• Ecological. Pests evolve resistance to a single toxin, and the pink bollworm became resistant to the two toxin Bt cotton (Bollgard II) in large parts of India within a decade; genes can also flow from a GM crop to wild relatives, a sharper worry for mustard, whose relatives grow in India, than for cotton.
• Health. Each GM event is tested for toxicity and allergenicity before release, though opponents argue that independent and long term testing in India is too thin.
• Social and ownership. GM seed is usually hybrid and patented, so farmers must buy it each season; the price and trait fees of Bt cotton were disputed until the Union government began fixing cotton seed prices in 2016.
• Legal and federal. Agriculture is a State subject, so States can refuse field trials on their land, and several have; this is where most trials stall.
• International. The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (2000), under the Convention on Biological Diversity, governs the movement of living modified organisms across borders on the basis of advance informed agreement and the precautionary approach, and India has been a Party since 2003.

In practice

The regulators

• The Rules of 1989, made under the Environment (Protection) Act 1986, set up a ladder: an Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBSC) in each research organisation; the Review Committee on Genetic Manipulation (RCGM) of the Department of Biotechnology (DBT), which clears research and small trials; and the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), renamed from "Approval" to "Appraisal" in 2010, which decides on large trials and release into the environment. State Biotechnology Coordination Committees and District Level Committees monitor what happens on the ground.

The cases

• Bt cotton (2002). It is still the only GM crop approved for commercial cultivation in India; herbicide tolerant Bt cotton has never been approved but is grown illegally from unlicensed seed.
• Bt brinjal (2009 to 2010). The GEAC approved it in October 2009, and in February 2010 the Environment Minister imposed a moratorium after public consultations, which still stands; Bangladesh has grown Bt brinjal since 2014.
• GM mustard, DMH-11. Developed at the University of Delhi's Centre for Genetic Manipulation of Crop Plants from the varieties Varuna and EH-2, it was recommended by the GEAC for environmental release on 18 October 2022, and the MoEFCC approved the release on 25 October 2022. Petitions by Gene Campaign and Aruna Rodrigues challenged it, and in November 2022 the Union told the Supreme Court it would take no hasty step.
• The split verdict of 23 July 2024. In Gene Campaign v Union of India, Justice B V Nagarathna quashed the 2022 approval, holding that the process was flawed, that the biosafety dossier had not been made public, that health experts and States had not been involved, and that the release violated the precautionary principle and the right to a healthy environment under Article 21; she also asked for a finding on whether DMH-11 is in effect a herbicide tolerant crop. Justice Sanjay Karol upheld the approval as a reasoned decision of an expert body, subject to strict conditions. Both agreed that the Union must frame a national policy on GM crops covering research, cultivation, trade and commerce, through a national consultation by the MoEFCC with States, farmers and experts, preferably within four months, and that GM food imports must meet the labelling requirement of the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006. Because the judges differed, the case was placed before the Chief Justice for a larger bench.
• What followed. In December 2024 the MoEFCC published a draft amendment to the 1989 Rules requiring GEAC members to declare conflicts of interest and recuse themselves, and the Supreme Court listed the case for hearing from April 2025, with the status quo on release maintained; the case has made no further progress since, and the national policy on GM crops has not been published.
• Genome edited rice (May 2025). On 30 March 2022 the MoEFCC exempted SDN 1 and SDN 2 plants without foreign DNA from the main provisions of the 1989 Rules, and DBT issued guidelines for their safety assessment in May 2022, so they are cleared by the IBSC and then tested like any new variety. In May 2025 the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) released two genome edited rice varieties, which it described as the first in the world: DRR Dhan 100 (Kamala), made at the Indian Institute of Rice Research, Hyderabad, by editing a cytokinin oxidase gene in Samba Mahsuri, which yielded about 19 per cent more on average in multi location trials and matures 15 to 20 days earlier; and Pusa DST Rice 1, made at the Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, from Cottondora Sannalu (MTU 1010) for drought and salt tolerance, which yields up to about 30 per cent more under saline and alkaline conditions.

Issues and way forward

• Decisions without a policy. Approvals have been made case by case and then reversed by ministers or courts, so neither developers nor critics know the rules; the national policy ordered by the Supreme Court, built with States and published openly, is the first step.
• Trust in the regulator. The judgment found that biosafety data were not public and that conflicts of interest were not managed; publishing every dossier, recusal rules with force and independent field testing would make approvals harder to challenge.
• Resistance and illegal seed. Pink bollworm resistance shows what happens when refuges of non Bt cotton are not planted, and unapproved herbicide tolerant cotton spreads because farmers want to cut weeding costs; enforced refuges, stacked traits and a clear decision on herbicide tolerance are overdue.
• Gene editing needs its own care. The 2022 exemption has made the edited rice possible, but critics question whether the varieties were tested enough before release; clear data on yield and safety, and labelling where needed, will decide whether this route earns trust.
• Public research for public crops. Funding ICAR and the universities to develop edited and GM traits in pulses and oilseeds keeps the benefit with farmers rather than a few seed firms.

Common confusions

• GM and genome edited. A GM crop carries a gene from another species, while an SDN 1 or SDN 2 edited crop has only its own genes, changed at a chosen place; India regulates the first under the 1989 Rules and has exempted the second.
• GEAC and RCGM. RCGM under DBT clears research and small controlled trials, while GEAC under the Environment Ministry decides on large trials and environmental release.
• Environmental release and commercial release. Environmental release, which DMH-11 received in 2022, allows growing in the open for seed production and trials, while commercial release lets the seed be sold to farmers.
• Hybrid and GM. A hybrid is any cross of two different parents, made by breeding, while GM refers to how a gene was put in; DMH-11 is both, since the GM genes are used to make a hybrid.
• Marker assisted selection and genetic modification. Marker assisted selection uses DNA markers to pick plants carrying a desired gene in ordinary breeding, as in the bacterial blight resistant Improved Samba Mahsuri, and adds no foreign gene.

For the exam

• Keyword bank: transgenic crop, Bt toxin, pest resistance and refuges, herbicide tolerance, DMH-11, barnase and barstar, GEAC, RCGM, Rules of 1989, precautionary principle, national policy on GM crops, SDN 1 and SDN 2, genome edited rice, Cartagena Protocol, edible oil import dependence.
• Previous year questions: Practise the previous year questions on this topic →
• Use in an answer:
  • Introduction with data: Bt cotton, approved in 2002, covers well over 90 per cent of India's cotton area, yet in more than two decades it remains the only GM crop India has approved for commercial cultivation.
  • Introduction with a judgement: In Gene Campaign v Union of India (July 2024), the Supreme Court split on GM mustard but both judges directed the Union to frame a national policy on GM crops after consulting States, farmers and experts.
  • Conclusion: India's crop biotechnology needs a policy decided once and openly rather than approvals decided case by case in courts, so that both the science and the safeguards are trusted.
  • Conclusion: The genome edited rice released in 2025 shows a faster route to better crops, but it will last only if the data behind it are public and the gains reach small farmers.