Crop improvement by breeding, biofortification and transgenics

Explanation

Statement 1 is correct. Biofortification is fundamentally distinguished from post-harvest fortification in that it works by developing crop varieties (through conventional breeding, agronomic practices, or biotechnology) that accumulate higher levels of micronutrients — such as iron, zinc, and protein — within the plant itself during cultivation. This is an 'in-crop' approach, not an 'at-factory' intervention. Statement 2 is incorrect. Scientific evidence indicates that elevated atmospheric CO2 levels reduce — not increase — the concentration of micronutrients like iron, zinc, and protein in staple cereal crops. This 'nutrient dilution effect' under high-CO2 conditions is one of the key concerns driving interest in biofortification; combined with soil degradation from monocropping and declining soil biodiversity, the trend is toward declining nutritional quality, not improvement. Statement 3 is correct. Agronomic biofortification — which improves the uptake and accumulation of nutrients in crops by enhancing soil health, microbial activity, and nutrient availability — is widely recognised as a complementary strategy alongside seed-level (genetic/breeding) biofortification. Healthier soils with better nutrient profiles enable crops to absorb and retain more micronutrients, making agronomic practices an integral part of any comprehensive biofortification programme.

Explanation

Statement 1 is correct. Bollgard-II (BG-II) cotton carries two Bacillus thuringiensis-derived insect-resistance proteins — Cry1Ac (present in original Bollgard) and the additional Cry2Ab — which together confer resistance to key lepidopteran pests including the American bollworm (Helicoverpa armigera). It was approved through the GEAC process before commercial release in India. Statement 2 is also correct. The CP4EPSPS gene (derived from Agrobacterium tumefaciens strain CP4) encodes a variant of the enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS) that is insensitive to glyphosate inhibition. Glyphosate's mode of action is to block the normal EPSPS enzyme, disrupting aromatic amino acid biosynthesis (the shikimate pathway); the CP4EPSPS variant allows the pathway to continue even when glyphosate is present, conferring herbicide tolerance. Statement 3 is incorrect on two counts: the GEAC (Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee) functions under the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), not the Ministry of Science and Technology. Furthermore, GEAC's approval recommendation requires concurrence from the competent authority — in practice, commercial cultivation of a GM crop also requires a final nod from the Union government (Minister-level) before states can permit cultivation. GEAC is an appraisal and recommendation body, not a body with wholly final, standalone commercial-release authority. Thus only statements 1 and 2 are correct.

Explanation

Statement 1 is correct. Conventional cross-breeding (hybridisation) works by combining the genetic traits of two parent lines — such as high vitamin C from one parent and the anthocyanin-producing purple flesh from another — so that the resulting progeny naturally accumulates higher concentrations of target nutrients. This is distinct from genetic engineering (transgenics), which introduces DNA from unrelated organisms. The biofortification pathway through conventional breeding does not require any external gene insertion. Statement 2 is correct. In India, before a new crop variety can be officially released and notified for commercial cultivation, it must pass through multi-location trials (also called All India Coordinated Research Trials) conducted across different agro-climatic regions. This protocol is overseen by bodies such as the Central Sub-Committee on Crop Standards, Notification and Release of Varieties (for horticultural crops), which evaluates the trial data before granting approval. Multi-location testing is not optional — it is a built-in safeguard to ensure that performance observed at a single research station is representative rather than site-specific. Statement 3 is false. Official notification by the regulatory authority certifies that a variety meets prescribed agronomic and quality standards after trialling — it does not certify that the crop is a proven solution to hidden hunger in real-world conditions. Effective delivery of biofortification benefits also depends on post-harvest handling, cooking methods (which can degrade heat-sensitive nutrients), consistency of consumption by target populations, bioavailability of the nutrients in the human gut, and market uptake. Regulatory approval is a necessary but far from sufficient condition for a biofortified variety to meaningfully address micronutrient deficiency at the population level.

Explanation

Statement 1 is correct. The GEAC (Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee), which functions under the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, is India's apex technical regulator for GM crop biosafety. However, as illustrated by the 2010 Bt brinjal episode — where then-Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh imposed an indefinite moratorium despite GEAC's technical clearance — the Minister retains independent authority and is not obligated to follow the regulator's recommendation. This structural asymmetry between technical advice and political decision-making is a defining feature of India's GM governance. Statement 2 is incorrect. India permits Bt cotton for commercial cultivation but has not approved any GM food crop for commercial release. Bt brinjal was placed under an indefinite moratorium in 2010, GM mustard's release stalled despite technical clearance, and no other GM food crop has received full environmental release approval — making the claim that at least one GM food crop has been cleared factually wrong. Statement 3 is correct. CRISPR-Cas9 works through a two-component system: a guide RNA (gRNA) that is programmed to match the target DNA sequence, and the Cas9 nuclease enzyme that the gRNA steers to that precise chromosomal location, where Cas9 cuts the double-stranded DNA. This cut then allows scientists to delete, alter, or insert genetic material at the target site. This mechanism is foundational to understanding how gene-edited crops differ from transgenic crops like Bt cotton or GM mustard.

Explanation

Pair 1 is correctly matched: in India, the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC), constituted under the Environment Protection Act, 1986, is the apex body that grants approval for the environmental release and commercial cultivation of GM crops. Pair 2 is incorrectly matched: gene-edited crops (developed using tools such as CRISPR-Cas9) are NOT regulated identically to transgenic/GM crops under current Indian law. Unlike transgenic crops — which involve insertion of foreign DNA from another species — gene editing typically makes targeted modifications within the organism's own genome without introducing foreign genetic material. India, like several other countries, is debating a lighter regulatory pathway for gene-edited crops precisely because they are considered conceptually distinct from GMOs; ICAR has developed gene-edited rice varieties that are awaiting a separate commercial-release framework, and industry is pushing for their explicit recognition in the proposed Seed Bill separate from GM-crop rules. Treating them as identical to transgenics would be a regulatory conflation that India's scientific community and industry are actively seeking to correct. Pair 3 is correctly matched: Bt Cotton was the first — and so far the only — GM crop permitted for commercial cultivation in India, released in 2002.

Explanation

SDN1 (Site Directed Nuclease 1) does NOT introduce exogenous (foreign) DNA. Like SDN2, it mutates a native gene in its native location to create an alternative allele with an altered expression and function. The mutants produced by both SDN1 and SDN2 are free of externally introduced DNA and are indistinguishable from spontaneous or induced mutants. Precisely because of this, both SDN1 and SDN2 products are exempted from biosafety regulation under Rules 7–11 of the Environment Protection (Rules) 1989, under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Pair 1 is therefore incorrectly described — it falsely attributes 'foreign DNA introduction' to SDN1, which is actually the distinguishing feature of the more tightly regulated SDN3 category. Pair 2 is correctly described for SDN2.