With reference to the Genetically Modified mustard (GM mustard) developed in India, consider the following statements : 1. GM mustard has the genes of a soil bacterium that give the plant the property of pest-resistance to a wide variety of pests. 2. GM mustard has the genes that allow the plant cross-pollination and hybridization. 3. GM mustard has been developed jointly by the IARI and Punjab Agricultural University. Which of the statements given above is/are correct ?

Gives the general rule that GM plants receive foreign genes (transgenes) from other organisms when modified.

A student could use this rule to ask whether the specific DMH‑11 description lists a transgene and from which organism it was sourced (e.g., check GEAC/ICAR documents).

States that one purpose of GM crops is to provide resistance to bacteria, viruses and other damaging agents, showing pest‑resistance is a common engineered trait.

A student could therefore look for trait summaries of DMH‑11 to see if pest‑resistance is the engineered trait and how it is achieved.

Notes that GEAC reviewed and recommended DMH‑11 (GM mustard) for environmental release and required studies on pollinators — indicating official dossiers exist describing DMH‑11 traits.

A student could consult the GEAC recommendation/report referenced here to find technical details about the inserted genes and their source.

Mentions prior GEAC clearances and the regulatory process (e.g., Bt brinjal, Bt cotton) indicating that GM crops with pest‑resistance traits have been evaluated in India.

Using this pattern, a student could compare the documented trait sources in previously evaluated GM crops to the DMH‑11 dossier to see if a soil bacterium gene was used.

Discusses specific environmental/management consequences of particular engineered traits (herbicide resistance) showing that different transgenes confer distinct resistances.

A student could use this example to reason that DMH‑11’s documented trait will specify whether it is herbicide resistance, pest resistance, or another trait, and then verify gene origin.

Defines GM organisms as plants with foreign genes inserted, establishing that specific reproductive-trait genes (like male-sterility/restorer) can in principle be introduced by genetic engineering.

A student could use this rule to infer that if male-sterility or restorer genes exist, they could be introduced into mustard via transgenic methods and then check specific trait descriptions or approvals for DMH-11.

Notes that GM mustard 'can contaminate other fields through cross-pollination', indicating concern about gene flow from GM mustard to non-GM crops.

Combine this with basic knowledge that male-sterility/restorer systems promote hybrid seed production and could increase cross-pollination potential, then examine DMH-11 breeding notes or biosafety reviews for such systems.

Mentions DMH-11 specifically and that regulators required field studies on effects on pollinators (honeybees), linking this GM variety to pollination-related environmental assessment.

A student could take this as a cue to look for whether DMH-11's breeding strategy involves traits that alter pollination biology (e.g., male-sterility) in regulatory dossiers or GEAC reports.

Explains that GEAC is the apex regulator for GM crops in India, implying that trait-level details (including reproductive trait genes) would be part of regulatory assessment.

Use this to justify searching GEAC minutes/reports or regulatory submissions for DMH-11 to find whether male-sterility/restorer genes were included.

Contains an explicit textbook assertion that 'GM mustard has the genes that allow the plant cross-pollination and hybridization', showing that at least some educational sources assert reproductive-trait modification.

Treat this as a reported claim to be verified: a student could cross-check primary regulatory documents or scientific descriptions of DMH-11 to confirm whether the claim refers to specific male-sterility/restorer genes.

Identifies the GM variety as DMH‑11 (Dhara Mustard Hybrid) and notes GEAC/ICAR involvement in follow-up field studies, linking the variety to national regulatory and research bodies.

A student could use this to look specifically for developer attribution for DMH‑11 (Dhara) in ICAR/IARI or state university records to see if IARI+PAU are named developers.

States DMH‑11 (GM mustard) was cleared by GEAC for field trials in 2016, highlighting the formal project name and timeline for the crop's development.

Use the DMH‑11 name and 2016 trial clearance date to search records, publications, or press releases from IARI, PAU or collaborating institutions around that period to check joint-development claims.

Explains ICAR is the coordinating agency for agricultural research and that agricultural universities conduct teaching and research, establishing the typical institutional relationships in crop development.

Apply this pattern to expect ICAR/ICAR‑linked institutes (like IARI) and state agricultural universities (like PAU) to appear in collaborative project documentation for a new crop variety.

Describes GEAC as the apex regulator for GM crops under the Environment Protection Act, indicating regulatory filings (GEAC submissions) would name developers/ applicants.

Check GEAC submission documents or recommendations for DMH‑11 to see which institution(s) are listed as developers or applicants (IARI, PAU, private partner etc.).

Discusses broader issues and impacts of introducing GM mustard (herbicide use, pollinators), implying extensive studies and stakeholder documentation likely exist naming technical developers and collaborators.

Search the technical/environmental assessment reports and stakeholder submissions referenced in debate over GM mustard for explicit attribution of development to specific institutes.