The Hindu Business Line : Argument over rice technology

Ex facie, there may be merit in the concerns expressed by rice exporters that a switch to a genetically modified crop would imperil the existing huge market for Indian rice in Europe, but the larger national interest strongly argues in favour of continuing with research for technology infusion in agriculture. The argument against allowing field trials of genetically modified rice (Bt. Rice) is both short-sighted and specious. Exporters have, no doubt, invested time and money in building infrastructure and cultivating markets in recent years; but to oppose the introduction of a cutting-edge technology in agriculture for fear of losing an entrenched market is far from fair, especially to the growers. The catastrophic effects of unsteady growth in foodgrains production in recent years are there for all to see. Tightening supplies and rising prices of essential commodities have combined to pressure the government into banning exports and opening up duty-free imports.

Rice has remained the sole exception. Yet how long the good times will last is tough to predict. While basmati rice exports may continue in the foreseeable future, the same cannot be said about non-basmati varieties. Sluggish domestic output and growing internal demand can quickly reduce any surplus the country may have today. The challenge is to reduce crop losses arising out of biotic and abiotic stresses, to raise the average yield (abysmally low at about 2,000 kilograms of rice per hectare) and expand total production. Biotechnology has revolutionised agriculture in developed economies such as the US. For India the benefits from the introduction of Bt Cottonseed three years ago are a matter of record — sustained high output and creation of a genuine export surplus. Technology can help sustain the surplus in rice too.

Even as one argues in favour of adopting modern technology, the role of regulators in ensuring that bio-safety and other concerns are adequately and transparently addressed cannot be understated. Unfortunately, in such matters, stakeholder consultation is either non-existent or a farce. If exporters have a concern, the regulator is duty-bound to consider it dispassionately. However, there is absolutely no need for the regulator to succumb to lobbies that demand stoppage of scientific experiments. Field trials are the only way to establish, in a credible scientific manner, the safety and the commercial prospects of Bt Rice. On the other hand, rice exporters would be perfectly legitimate in demanding strict regulatory oversight and implementation of research rules that are transparent. If they are genuinely interested in ensuring supplies of the right varieties of rice for export, they should establish backward linkages and organise viable cultivation through, say, contract farming.