» WELCOME
» AN INTRODUCTION
» PROFILES
» LM WATCH
» CONTACT
» LOBBYWATCH LINKS
»


Bitter harvest - GM in India (13/12/2004)

EXCERPT: It is a matter of shame that the government has been implementing a full-fledged programme on GM crops and foods in the absence of a national policy and a national consensus.

Nobody knows the priorities for Indian research on GM crops, how these priorities have been identified, and the criteria by which the crops and traits have been selected and by whom.

There are grave doubts about the competence and independence of the structures for regulation, oversight and monitoring of GM crops. And it is regrettable that neither farmers nor the public, who will be consumers of GM foods, have been taken into confidence.

The crucial questions are: What is the process for deciding that a GM approach rather than a conventional approach is appropriate for achieving a desired goal? Is it possible to implement GM technology in India - with its requirement for segregation, labelling and identity preservation - given the special constraints of Indian agriculture and small farmers? And, as a centre of origin and diversity for rice, what should India's policy be on GM rice?

It is time the country gave itself a well-considered national policy on agricultural biotechnology. The policy should be framed after widespread consultations with a range of stakeholders. The process of consultations should be inclusive and transparent, allowing a range of expertise and insights into the decision-making process.
------

THE LEADER ARTICLE: Bitter Harvest: Green Revolution Crops Better Than GM Varieties
SUMAN SAHAI
The India Times, DECEMBER 14, 2004
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/957460.cms

Agbiotechnology, which is almost synonymous with GM (genetically modified) crops, is presented in many forms, the most common being that it will solve world hunger. To reinforce this claim, there is an interesting word play at work. Agbiotechnology is referred to as the 'gene revolution' or the 'evergreen revolution'; both terms are an attempt to link agbiotech with the Green Revolution. In the view of most policy-makers, farmers and citizens, the Green Revolution was a positive happening. It did, in fact, increase food production, principally cereal production. It made India independent of food exports and firmed up its political spine.

These gains were so visible that the downside - the unequal distribution of the benefits, of land and water degradation, the accompanying loss of genetic diversity and the persisting endemic hunger and poverty - could not take the shine off the Green Revolution. Because of this positive image, the promoters of agbiotech, the large corporations like Monsanto, draw semantic parallels, invoking the earlier agricultural revolution. The subliminal message is, if the Green Revolution brought so many benefits, the evergreen revolution would bring all those in perpetuity. Deliberately left out of this portrayal are the crucial differences between the two 'revolutions'.

The Green Revolution was a publicly-owned technology. The research was conducted with public money to fulfil a public need - inadequate food production - and it created public goods to which everyone had access. There were no intellectual property rights (IPR), no patents vested in multinational companies, no proprietary technologies or products. If there was ownership of the GR, it was vested in the farmer. Once the seed reached the farmers, it was theirs; they moved it where they wanted. Despite its faults, the GR addressed farmers' needs and India's food production showed an upward curve.

The evergreen revolution is almost the exact opposite. It is a privately-owned technology. Six corporations (Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer CropScience, DuPont, Dow and BASF Plant Science) control practically the entire research and output in the field of transgenic plants. Processes and products, including research methodologies, are shackled in patents and the farmer has no say, let alone any control. The technology creates only private goods that can be accessed only at significant cost (a bag of Mahyco-Monsanto's Bt cotton seeds in India costs Rs 1,600 as compared to Rs 300-400 for superior varieties produced locally).

The seed belongs to the company, which strictly controls its movement. With the development of the 'terminator' or sterile seed technology, the farmer is reduced to a helpless consumer, not a partner as in the case of the GR. The evergreen revolution has in its 20 years not yet produced a crop variety that has any direct connection to hunger and nutritional needs. The most prevalent crops remain corn, soybean, cotton and canola and the dominant traits are herbicide 'tolerance' and insect resistance. In contrast, the green revolution was able to put out a number of crop varieties in a short span of time that enabled direct yield increases, which brought immediate benefits to farmers.

India had participated enthusiastically in the GR and is on its way to equally enthusiastically embrace the evergreen revolution. Yet there is little debate in the country on whether any lessons have been learnt from the Green Revolution. There is even less debate between policy-makers and other stakeholders about the path that agbiotechnology should take in India. There is no consultation with the public or any sharing of information, as is done in almost all countries implementing GM technology.

The Department of Biotechnology has promoted research projects randomly in universities and research institutions, without any assessment of farmers' needs and the best way to fulfil them; civil society has been uneasy with the lack of transparency and the lack of competence in regulatory bodies; and the media and the political class is largely uninformed about the new technology. It is a matter of shame that the government has been implementing a full-fledged programme on GM crops and foods in the absence of a national policy and a national consensus. Nobody knows the priorities for Indian research on GM crops, how these priorities have been identified, and the criteria by which the crops and traits have been selected and by whom. There are grave doubts about the competence and independence of the structures for regulation, oversight and monitoring of GM crops. And it is regrettable that neither farmers nor the public, who will be consumers of GM foods, have been taken into confidence.

The crucial questions are: What is the process for deciding that a GM approach rather than a conventional approach is appropriate for achieving a desired goal? Is it possible to implement GM technology in India - with its requirement for segregation, labelling and identity preservation - given the special constraints of Indian agriculture and small farmers? And, as a centre of origin and diversity for rice, what should India's policy be on GM rice? It is time the country gave itself a well-considered national policy on agricultural biotechnology. The policy should be framed after widespread consultations with a range of stakeholders. The process of consultations should be inclusive and transparent, allowing a range of expertise and insights into the decision-making process.

Go to a Print friendly Page


Email this Article to a Friend


Back to the Archive