EDITORIALS

july 26, 2014 vol xlix no 30 EPW Economic & Political Weekly
8
B
y clearing the way for eld trials of genetically-modied
(GM) food crops, the Genetic Engineering Approval Com-
mittee (GEAC) of the Environment Ministry has inadvert-
ently laid a political challenge before the Narendra Modi-led
government in New Delhi. Will it adhere to its stated objection to
GM crops mentioned in its election manifesto, or will it take another
of its, by now fabled, U-turns and go down the path of its avowed
neo-liberal economic policies where the interests of investors, parti-
cularly from overseas, take precedence over other concerns?
It is curious that the GEAC has chosen to clear the way for some
15 GM food and other crops to undergo controlled eld trials.
These include rice, mustard, chickpea, cotton and brinjal. The
introduction of GM mustard was strongly opposed several years
back and the eld trials were cancelled. Bt brinjal was also
cleared for trials but withdrawn in the face of objections from
the Ministry of Environment and Forests based on the views of
farmers at a series of public hearings around India. Despite this,
and the fact that the Supreme Court is currently hearing argu-
ments against eld trials of GM crops in the absence of adequate
regulatory systems, the GEAC has chosen to go ahead. In fact, the
Technical Expert Committee (TEC) set up by the Supreme Court
to look into this issue has recommended a moratorium on eld
trials because it believes the regulatory system is inadequate.
As in many other parts of the world, the advent of GM food
and other crops to enhance productivity has faced entrenched
opposition in India too. The opposition falls into several distinct
categories. One camp argues that the technology, which involves
introducing a foreign gene, is dangerous because once intro-
duced, it is irreversible. In other words, once you have a GM
crop, you cannot reverse the process if you nd that it is causing
harm. These groups have also questioned whether GM technol-
ogy does, in fact, increase productivity as is claimed by the pro-
moters of the technology. They also point out that the environ-
mental costs might outweigh any benets that the introduction
of such a technology brings.
The other argument revolves around food security. In India,
as in many other parts of the world, a few multinational corpo-
rations, principally Monsanto, have a virtual monopoly on the
GM technology. If a countrys food production becomes overly
dependent on seeds and other inputs from a handful of such
companies, will it not compromise its food security?
The third argument is about the suitability of GM food crops for
a country like India where the majority of farmers own small
plots of land. To make them dependent on a technology with
high initial costs, and without an assurance that it will guaran-
tee higher yields, is placing them at a great risk. This has
a lready been evident in the spate of farmers suicides witnessed
in Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra in the course of the last
decade where farmers fell for the hard-sell of Bt cotton and
got entrapped in a debilitating debt cycle due to higher costs
without commensurate returns.
And the clinching argument is the absence of adequate regu-
latory and monitoring mechanisms to ensure that the eld trials
are conducted following safety protocols and that they do not
infect surrounding areas. The record in this regard has been less
than satisfactory in India. In fact, the Parliamentary Standing
Committee on Agriculture (PSCA) had called for a ban on eld
trials precisely for this reason. The basic norm to be followed
includes ensuring that there is a 20% non-Bt refuge area around
the trial area. Yet, eld trials of Bt cotton demonstrated the
a bsence of adequate monitoring of compliance of such rules.
Another important criticism of the entire process of eld trials is
the absence of an independent authority to assess safety and suit-
ability as well as a liability regime that can x responsibility for
damage. The GEAC tends to rely on data from those very private
companies whose products it is supposed to assess. Surely credi-
ble eld trials needed to assess the safety of GM crops are not pos-
sible under these conditions. Finally, labelling and public aware-
ness about GM crops are particularly poor and will allow private
companies to mislead people.
In addition to all this, the issue has taken an interesting
p olitical turn after the victory of the Bharatiya Janata Party
(BJP) in the general elections. In its election manifesto, the
BJP has expressly stated its opposition to the introduction of
GM food crops in I ndia. Among the groups opposing GM crops
are the Swadeshi Jagaran Manch and the Bharatiya Kisan
Sangh, both afliated, like the BJP, with the Rashtriya
Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). How will the Modi government
r esolve these contradictions?
Politics apart, what is evident is that the question of introduc-
ing GM food crops in India is still open for debate on all counts
safety and suitability. In addition, the monopoly control of GM
technology in the hands of a few large corporations is reason
enough for concern. It is dangerous to allow the spread of GM
crops before these concerns are addressed. India needs to tread
w arily down the GM path.
Modi and Modied Crops
India must stay with the precautionary principle with regard to genetically-modied crops.
the relationship that each of the BRICS members has with the US
vis--vis China and Russia, adversarial, vis--vis Brazil, India
and South Africa, as allies.
Note, for instance, what the Russian President Vladimir Putin
said, among other things, in an interview with Itar-Tass after
the BRICS summit: The international monetary system itself
depends a lot on the monetary and nancial policy of the US
authorities. The BRICS countries want to change this. Certainly,
there are sharp and deepening contradictions between some
BRICS members and the US, but given the supporting nature of
the relationship of other BRICS members with the US, the summits
decisions are unlikely to achieve what Putin has in mind.