Understanding why GM crops were never accepted and never will be

Once again, the ball is in the Judiciary’s Court (literally). It has been more than 2 decades, but the fiasco around GM crops does not seem to die. On one hand, people in their late 20s and above are finding it tough to locate anti-GM crop articles on the Internet. On the other hand, the government has given assent to GM mustard.

GM mustard in India

It all started a few weeks ago, when the Genetical Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) gave thumbs up to the environmental release of two GM Mustard types. The proposal then went to the Environment Ministry for approval. Government wasted no time and opened the gates for commercial production of GM Mustard oil. The matter is now in the Supreme Court where the government has defended its decision. Government cites Indians already consuming GM edible oils to validate its decision.

It took more than 2 decades for the scientists from Delhi University to get it approved by the government. In the last few years, some allegations of corruption in the approval process have also come to the forefront. Additionally, the crop yield (25-30 per cent) this technology promises to produce is also doubtful as possibility of yield declines are also being reported. Ultimate authority lies in the hands of the Supreme Court.

Rules around GM crops in India

This is like a Deja vu for people aware of evolution of GM crops in India. The controversy around GM mustard is exactly the same stuff which happened with the talks of introduction of GM brinjal and other GM crops. The Indian government, farmers, farm producer organisations and scientific community has been quite proactive in this regard. 6 years after the first Genetically modified plant was produced in 1983, India started to work on a regulatory module regarding their introduction in the country.

Under the Environment Protection Act (EPA) 1986, The Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemicals Rules, 1989 government rules and regulations regarding GM crops. The other technical aspects are taken care of by the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) and department of biotechnology (DBT) of Ministry of Science and Technology. According to the Press Information Bureau, at least 10 guidelines and protocols have been established to regulate GM crops.

Some of these were established in the 1990s while some were established after the approval of the first GM crop in India. It was done in 2002 when the Vajpayee government approved the introduction of Bt Cotton in India. The main purpose behind its introduction was to see whether it helps in increasing the productivity of crops and by extension the income of farmers.

India’s experiment with GM crops

On those parameters the results have been phenomenal. According to a report endorsed by Rajya Sabha, within 14 years, cotton yields increased from 189 kg lint per hectare to 504 kg lint per hectare. Per hectare insecticide use dropped from 1.53 kg in 2001 to 0.96 in 2013. Icing on the cake was that there were no reports of harmful effects on crops. All these amazing benefits resulted in a 56 per cent increase in total cultivated area. 96 per cent of them were occupied by Bt. Cotton in 2013. India became second largest producer of Cotton after China

The early trends of these numbers were good enough for the government to try out a few more crops for higher yield. The problem was that now the government wanted to enter into fodder crops while cotton is a non-food crop. Genetically modified versions of rice, maize, soybeans, mustard, peas, potatoes among others were also being tried in different countries. Government had approved field trials of GM food-crops after recommendations from GEAC. Meanwhile, some activists were worried about the lack of data over pros and cons of GMs on environment and human health. They went to the Supreme Court. The Apex Court slammed regulators and put an injunction on the field trials.

The downsides of GM

This was the breakthrough which the anti-GM community needed. After those newspapers got flooded with studies after studies of effects of these crops. The food produced from GM crops were found to be harmful in many studies. The disease caused by GM crops are believed to be immune from antibiotics. Additionally, the process of GM crops involves transfer of genes (supposedly disease resistant) from one plant to another, which is an unnatural way of producing crops.

This kind of cross-pollination is unacceptable for people belonging to varying religions and communities. Besides this stuff, there were little to none environmental impact studies done on these crops. It did not cross the minds of pro-GM bodies that a little amount of disease is needed to develop genes resistant to outside threat. Getting absolute freedom from diseases is a radical step, albeit from the compassionate side of things.

Other party acknowledged the fault, but subtly

The other party to the debate was focussing on lack of studies on these crops. For them, increasing crop yield was paramount in the wake of increasing hunger in India. This group got its biggest endorsement from Nobel Laureate Norman Borlough, who once famously proclaimed, “It is better to die eating GM food instead of dying of hunger,”.

In a way this was acceptance of the fact that scientists have taken due care of putting forward only the positive side of GM crops. But public policy does not run-on face value, especially in democracy.

Government jumping ships on ban vs no ban

Both sides failed to produce substantive evidence in support of their respective claims. Confusions prevailed over public platforms and it shunned the door for introduction of Bt. Brinjal in India. It was a significant halt since both groups had failed to reconcile differences in a 3 year long time frame. Jairam Ramesh, then environment minister had cited lack of consensus among scientists and opposition from brinjal growing states for blocking the release. 2 years later, the 37th report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Agriculture asked for an end to GM crops’ trials. In 2013, a panel appointed by the Apex Court recommended suspension of trials for 10 years. Environment Minister Jayanti Natarajan obliged and put on hold all those trials.

However, her successor Veerappa Moili and later the NDA government opened the gates for trials. Moili approved trials for 11 crops including maize, rice, sorghum, wheat, groundnut and cotton in March 2014. In July, 21 new variants were added to the trial list by the Modi government. In 2016, GM Mustard was also approved for field trial.

Rajya Sabha Committee was crystal clear

A year later, PARLIAMENTARY STANDING COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, ENVIRONMENT & FORESTS released a report regarding GM crops. The report was well balanced to say the least. It highlighted the positive aspect of GM cotton, but then it also went in-depth in studying the long-term consequences of GM crops.

One of the long-term consequences of these crops is that their USP was not found to be sustainable in the long run. In its interaction with locals (NGOs) engaged in GM farming, the Committee found that per hectare crop yield decreases over generation. Quote, “the productivity of third generation GM crops was much less than the first-generation GM crops”. One of the reasons for this decrease is the gradual evolution of bacteria side by side GM crops. These bacteria also develop mechanisms to weaken GM crops which lead to reduction in production.

The report highlighted how in the South-eastern USA, 92 per cent of cotton and soybean fields were found to be infested with superweeds as a logical consequence to GM crops. It also highlighted how the phenomenon affected the productivity of Bt Cotton in India. Committee found that the amount of Bt toxins produced by GM Bt crops turned out to be greater than the reduction in chemicals sprayed.

The Committee also highlighted how the literature around its effects on human health has evolved over time.

Unfortunately, things have not changed for much in the last 4 to 5 years. There is still a lack of consensus on its effects on the environment and human body. However, if you analyse trends all around the world, sentiments are more against GM crops. Lots of countries have made it mandatory for companies to label GM crops while dozens have banned it. Predominantly, countries repulsive of these crops are found in the European Union.

It is true that there is a cloud of uncertainty around it. Since, the cost is human life, it is always safe to do away with risky stuff. Food insecurity can always be managed by a proper redistribution regime.