Thursday, March 27, 2008

By Neelam Raaj

But first, Delhi high court will have to decide whether the company conducting its field trials can keep data on health and environment safety tests out of the public domain on the grounds that the information is a "trade secret".

The data in question comprises toxicity and allergenicity studies and was submitted by Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co Ltd (Mahyco), a subsidiary of multinational Monsanto, to the department of biotechnology for regulatory clearances.

A representative of environmental watchdog Greenpeace sought access to the data under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.

Currently, open-air field trials of GM brinjal are being conducted in the fields of 11 public sector institutions. It is expected to hit the market by 2009, with Indians being the first global consumers of this transgenic crop.

While Greenpeace says disclosure is in public interest, Mahyco has moved high court seeking quashing of the order passed by the Central Information Commission last year ordering the department of biotechnology to release data on the safety tests.

The company has argued that the data contains immense patentable information and should be considered its intellectual property.

In its petition, it has also said that the CIC order violates the government`s obligations under TRIPS.

The CIC order came after the department of bio-technology turned down Greenpeace`s plea for data on the grounds that the information it sought included "commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party".

Besides brinjal, Greenpeace also sought bio-safety data on GM bhindi, mustard and rice. However, the CIC found merit in the Greenpeace argument that the data would not be used for commercial purposes and was sought to ascertain the risks that transgenic crops pose, particularly when open-air field trials are being conducted across the country.

The second time around, the department of biotechnology did not deny access but said the data could not be provided as it ran into thousands of pages.

The Central Information Commission heard a second appeal on November 22, 2007. The Commissioner, after going through the Environmental Protection Act (1986), noted that "genetically engineered organism or cells are recognised by the government as an item potentially hazardous to public heath.

"It automatically follows that full compliance with these rules is a matter for public interest".

Mahyco subsequently moved Delhi high court which passed an interim order in December 2007 staying the CIC order till the next hearing of the case on April 23.

Copyright © 2008 Times Internet Limited.