A timeline for commercial cultivation of India’s genetically modified mustard remains unclear given pending field studies, the need to find companies ready to make and market the seeds, and persistent resistance from anti-GM activists that had successfully blocked GM brinjal 12 years ago.

The Genetic Engineering and Appraisal Committee (GEAC), an apex regulatory body under the Union environment ministry, has approved supervised environmental release of GM mustard to enable its use for development of new and high-yielding hybrids, and seeds.

Plant biologists at the University of Delhi, South Campus, who developed the GM mustard 20 years ago have said it promises 25 to 30 per cent higher yields than standard mustard varieties and will help India reduce its edible oil import bill.

“The GM mustard represents a step towards the goal of developing robust, high-yielding hybrids while at the same time trying to reduce the environmental footprint of agriculture,” Deepak Pental, a senior scientist who led the research team, told The Telegraph on Thursday.

The GEAC, in a note sent to Pental on October 25, conveyed its approval for the environmental release of the GM mustard “for seed production and testing… prior to commercial release”.

It also asked scientists to conduct field studies to generate evidence for the effects, if any, of the GM mustard on honeybees and other pollinators in Indian agro-climatic zones within two years under supervision of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research.

The tasks ahead — field studies, development of new hybrids, manufacture of seeds on a large scale, and the search for companies to commercialise the technology — could “take around two years”, Pental said. “We’ll need to look for companies with research capability and experience with mustard.”

Sections of scientists have applauded the GEAC decision.

“Mustard farmers are ready for a change… higher yields without any additional input of water, fertiliser, or pesticides,” Krishnaswamy VijayRaghavan, former secretary of the department of biotechnology and former principal scientific adviser to the Indian government, tweeted on Wednesday.

But Pental and others in the plant biotechnology community remain concerned about what they say is unscientific opposition to GM food crops in the country that the GM mustard has also encountered.

The Coalition for GM-free India, a nationwide network of anti-GM crop activists and sections of farmers’ groups, said on Wednesday that any government approval for commercial release of the GM mustard would face “serious resistance” from citizens’ and farmers’ groups.

Many scientists have over the past decade expressed frustration at what they view as the Centre’s reluctance to approve edible GM crops since former environment minister Jairam Ramesh blocked the commercial release of GM brinjal in 2010 after a series of consultations with scientists and activists.

The GEAC had also recommended the commercial release of the GM mustard in 2017, but the environment ministry had not accepted the decision. The Coalition for GM-free India has now again asked the environment ministry to stall any commercial release.

“The process of review of GM mustard is not rigorous enough and GEAC doesn’t seem to be really serious about either assessing its safety or efficacy,” the Coalition said in a letter to the environment ministry sent on October 20.

But scientists said the technology underlying the Indian GM mustard crop has been used in hybrids of rapeseed — a cousin of mustard — that have been released and grown in Canada since 1996, the US since 2002, and Australia since 2007.

VijayaRaghavan, in his tweets on the GEAC’s decision on Wednesday, said there was a record of safe consumption of GM rapeseed oil and meal all over the world. “No ill effects have been reported since the first release in 1996,” he wrote.

Some scientists believe the research community should itself share some blame for the Centre’s go-slow approach on GM food crops for failing to launch effective arguments against the activists’ positions and convince policymakers and politicians about the potential benefits of GM food crops.

“While doing research, scientists should have in parallel engaged with economists and social scientists to clear misconceptions that have stalled this technology in India,” said Rakesh Tuli, a plant biologist and former member of the GEAC.

But others caution that when opposition is based on ideology, there is little scope for dialogue. Pental said: “It is difficult to engage with positions of extreme ideology that GM crops will not be acceptable, no matter what.”