The Hindu Business Line : Evaluate GM crops critically and fairly

THE Government's recent approval for the commercial production of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) cotton has certainly opened the floodgates for approval of other GM crops in India. As a result, environmentalists and bio-fundamentalists have stepped up campaigns on their adverse impact of GM crops on environment and health. It is, therefore, necessary to analyse the pros and cons of GM crops in an objective and dispassionate manner with utmost urgency.

During the last decade, GM crops have been introduced in the US, China and Brazil. Globally, the total area under GM crops is estimated at 50 million hectares in 2001. The GM market, which was worth $1.64 billion in 1998, is expected to increase eight-fold by 2010.

The supporters of these crops assert that they are pest-resistant, give higher yield and have better nutritional value. For example, GM potatoes can be grown with lower carbohydrate levels. The farmers, in India, will no longer have to lose 35 per cent (worth about Rs 5,50,000 crore) of their vegetable produce to pests and worms. Potatoes, alone, worth about Rs 50,000 crore can be saved. Also, GM mustard oil will have low calorific value and its yield could go up by 30 per cent. In the case of Bt cotton, an increase of 20-30 per cent is expected, resulting in a saving of Rs 6,000 per hectare for the farmer. It is also thought that popular massoor dal, a lentil, can be freed of carcinogens if genetically modified. These and similar claims, if correct, can significantly change the present economic scenario.

Optimists think that India could emerge a world leader in biotechnology, given its excellent pool of biotechnology experts and may even outshine the achievements in IT.

While we are looking at the bright side of GM crops, we should also ensure that their introduction does not have real harmful implications for the health and environment. Those arguing against them speak of some potential dangers of releasing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into the environment. These dangers, interalia, include concerns such as:

creation of a new or known toxin or allergen;

creation of desirable strains on account of growth or other advantages;

changes in surfaces properties that may affect interaction between species in a viable and useful ecosystem;

interference with a symbiotic relationship;

interference with reproduction; and

development of resistance to the trait introduced.

There is also a genuine apprehension of GM genes crossing the country or region's boundaries, which might put the `recipient' country at risk by infecting other forms of life.

To give some specific examples of the fears connected with the introduction of GM crops, Bt cotton is a case in point. Some experts think that Bt cotton may not prove to be pest-resistant in the long term. This is reinforced by the fact that the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) has made it mandatory for the farmers to create a `refuge belt' of a few rows of conventional cotton plants so that insects would feed on the latter. Whether this strategy would work still remains to be proved. Since Bt cotton was primarily developed for temperate climate, it may not be suitable for the tropical climate.

ICAR field-trials cannot also be taken as conclusive since data was supplied by Mahyco-Monsanto. Also, milk from the cattle that are fed on oilcake from Bt cotton may be harmful for human beings. Further, oil from GM mustard seed and GM corn too, which may be the next items for approval by the GEAC, may not be safe for consumption.

In the context of biotechnology, it should be recalled that before the Green Revolution of the 1960s in India, agriculture or crop cultivation was considered environmentally benign. Green Revolution — which dramatically changed the life of the farmers and made the country self-sufficient in food — has resulted in polluting the surface and groundwater resources, besides creating shortage of water. Also, samplers of food have been found to be contaminated. This is due to the heavy application of chemical fertilisers, pesticides and over-pumping of water, which hybrid seeds demand. It is this earlier none-too-happy an experience with Green Revolution, coupled with no clarity on environmental and health impacts of GM crops, that a hue and cry is being made by social activists against GM food.

It is evident that we need to put our house in order on GM crops. First, an independent team of dedicated biotechnology experts, economists and environmentalists, working in coordination with policy-makers, should assess the economic benefits vis-à-vis their environmental and health implications. The two committees — the Review Committee on Genetic Manipulations (RCGM) of the Department of Biotechnology and GEAC of the Ministry of Environment and Forests — are not considered professionally competent and experienced enough to do the above task.

Second, there should be a regulatory mechanism for monitoring GM foods and a contingency plan to withdraw them in case of ill-effects on health. At the international level, the UN Codex Inter-Governmental task force is developing guidelines for risk assessment of GM foods and we should benefit from them, keeping India's climate and other conditions in view.

Till the above assessment is complete and all issues are sorted out satisfactorily, there should be a moratorium on the release of GMOs. At the same time, it would be unwise to scuttle `biotechnology' policy initiative on rickety grounds.

(The author, a former Director of CSO, is a consultant on environment and poverty alleviation.)

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section
Trading with China

From crisis to crisis

Pension torpedo hits Royal Navy

EU okays e-com VAT

Evaluate GM crops critically and fairly

A raw deal for trusts

Scheming benevolence

Are MFs asking for more?

Export strategy: Focus shift called for

The economics of a scam