ON 27 July, I wrote in these pages that GM maize is a double-edged sword for Pakistan. Biotechnology can improve productivity, pest management and food security. But its commercialization can create ecological, socioeconomic, biosafety and trade-related risks without adequate safeguards. The latest controversy surrounding genetically modified maize and the Federal Variety Evaluation Committee (VEC) shows why that warning deserves renewed attention. The issue before the government is no longer simply whether Pakistan should accept or reject GM technology. The question is whether regulatory institutions will follow their own procedures before allowing old GMO maize cases to move towards commercialization. Recent reporting has raised questions about 21 foreign GMO maize hybrids appearing on the VEC agenda, including cases reportedly associated with NUYT conducted many years ago. The report has questioned how old cases could return when VEC procedures prescribe specific time limits.
The VEC’s 16th meeting minutes state that after two consecutive years of the most recent NUYT data, a breeder must submit the case within one year of notification of the second-year result. Once VEC recommends a variety or hybrid, the breeder must enlist it within one year; otherwise, the recommendation becomes invalid. This rule also applies to previous VEC recommendations. No ambiguity should remain. A variety cannot acquire permanent regulatory life simply because it was once considered by VEC. If a recommendation has lapsed, the government should determine whether the applicant is entitled to revive the old case or whether a fresh application and evaluation are required. This is not an anti-GMO position; it is a pro-regulation position.
Supporters argue that Pakistan faces climate stress, insect-pest pressure and rising demand for maize. GM technology may provide useful traits such as resistance to particular pests and potentially reduce production losses. But Pakistan’s maize farmers include many smallholders. Seed prices, intellectual-property arrangements, input dependency and resistance management therefore require careful examination. Before presenting GM technology as the answer to Pakistan’s maize productivity problem, the government should establish its additional economic and agronomic benefit over available conventional and hybrid alternatives. The experience of Bt cotton should also encourage caution. The lesson is not necessarily that biotechnology itself is unsuitable for Pakistan, but that a technological package introduced without adequate stewardship, resistance management, extension, seed regulation and farmer support can produce disappointing results and unintended consequences.
The trade dimension is equally important. Pakistan’s agricultural economy depends heavily on international markets. Commercialization of GM maize requires assessment of its implications for markets demanding non-GM and/or traceable products. Unintended presence of GM material in conventional supply chains cannot simply be dismissed. Government must identify affected export markets, their requirements and the segregation, testing and certification infrastructure necessary. The Seed Act provides another safeguard for genetically modified plant varieties and hybrids, requiring a National Biosafety Committee certificate concerning potential adverse effects on the environment and human, animal and plant health, together with crop-season field data.
VEC evaluation should not be confused with biosafety approval. VEC evaluates varietal performance, while biosafety assessment addresses scientific and environmental questions, including gene flow, non-target organisms and food safety. The government should therefore establish a sequence: fresh scientific evidence → biosafety assessment → multilocation evaluation → VEC consideration → farmer and economic assessment → export-market assessment → final decision. If a case has lapsed, it should not be revived through an administrative shortcut. If reconsideration is warranted, the applicant should start afresh under the current regulatory framework.
Transparency is equally essential. The review should involve independent experts in plant breeding, biosafety, environmental sciences, economics and seed regulation. Farmers and public-sector agricultural researchers should also have a meaningful voice. Individuals with direct commercial interests in an applicant company should not decide its case. Pakistan needs biotechnology, but it also needs regulatory institutions capable of managing it in the public interest. It should neither reject modern science nor open the door to commercialization without safeguards.
Policymakers should apply VEC procedures, enforce the Seed Act’s biosafety requirements, revalidate dormant cases, demand current scientific evidence and protect farmers and export markets. The issue is bigger than GM maize: it is a test of whether agricultural regulation is governed by science and law—or by expediency and influence. Pakistan should embrace technology, but not at the cost of regulatory integrity.
—The writer is former Plant Protection Adviser, based in Islamabad.
