The Hindu Business Line : The true Indian basmati rice

Farm scientists deem that the extant definition of basmati rice in the Commerce Ministry’s Notification to be restrictive and deleterious to the interests of farmers, in view of the proviso that one of the parents of a rice variety should be traditional variety of basmati to qualify for being classified as basmati.

G. Srinivasan

Fetching some $700 million annually from the European Union and other overseas markets, the traditional and evolved varieties of basmati rice are emerging big-ticket items of agri products exports. Unfortunately, there have also been some developments of concern on this front. The rice trade is deriving full mileage out of the definitional problem of basmati that is interminably debated by the Department of Commerce and the Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, much t o the chagrin of farm scientists.

Under the Export of Basmati Rice (Quality Control and Inspection) Rules 2003, the Commerce Ministry notified the key characteristics of exportable variety as “long grain, cooking quality, mouth feel, aroma,” besides categorising basmati rice as an “evolved” or a “traditional variety”. The traditional strains are repositories of genetic variability and well adapted to local soil type and climatic conditions. They remain the mainspring of many valuable genes, including those for adaptation. .

Evolved varieties, per contra, are developed through objective plant breeding techniques to produce strains that are agronomically superior. The evolved variety is one arrived by hybridisation, whereas the traditional variety is th at evolved through a natural process in which some improvements have been brought about by the farmers.

There is also no legal definition of the evolved or the traditional variety as the Plant Protection Variety and Farmers Right Act defines a “variety” and not “a traditional variety”.

The Agriculture Ministry contends that the explanations adduced in the Commerce Ministry’s notification are “flawed,” insofar as the same varieties have been shown as evolved and traditional. Interestingly, the Commerce Ministry’s notification does not make a categorisation on the basis of the notification under the Seed Act, 1946, which recognises only 11 varieties of basmati rice so far — six traditional and five evolved.

Definition, restrictive and deleterious

Agricultural scientists deem that the definition in the Commerce Ministry’s Notification to be restrictive and deleterious to farmer interests, especially the proviso that one of the parents of a rice variety should be a traditional basmati variety to be so classified. Dr K. V. Prabhu, Head, Division of Genetics, Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), told Business Line: “We are fighting on the issue of definition. That one parent has to be necessarily among the six traditional lines to qualify a material to be called basmati is extremely unscientific in every way, because we have exploited all that is possible to be exploited from these six parents. The moment we use one of these as a parent, we are restricted to the traits present in those; all other traits in the unwanted variety will accompany every time you make the cross.

“We have to break this, as we have got so much understanding today of the genes responsible for basmati traits. We can bring out those traits and breed varieties that have excellent lines, far better than the so-called traditional basmati rice. We have the tools and the technology to pick up the genes but that is what is restricted. We can’t do that when that is what we want.”

He added that the definition of evolved basmati should be reviewed on a scientific basis by defining the set of grain and cooking quality characteristics while involving traditional basmati in the genetic lineage.

Hence, it should not be limited to the immediate parent, but broadened by the genes which can now be precisely identified through modern plant breeding tools such as molecular marker assisted plant breeding.

While parentage is not everything as paraphrased evocatively by Dr Prabhu as far as basmati goes, scientists say sticking to the Commerce Ministry’s definition might be a retrograde step considering the advanced breeding methodologies available and which scientifically ensure that the genes that make the quality traits are fully complied with in the so-called evolved basmati too.

The new variety developed by IARI — the Pusa Sughandh 4 or the PUSA 1121, which currently fetches the highest price in local markets — is a case in point.

DNA testing

Agricultural scientists assert that among the six notified traditional basmati rice varieties, only Taraori Basmati (HBC 19) is popular in global trade and this is also being fast substituted by CSR 30, which adapts well to the region it is grown in and which also has all the qualities of basmati. But CSR 30 does not qualify as a basmati rice (neither traditional not evolved) by the definition, according to a note by the Agriculture Ministry.

The Ministry also cautions that should this fact come to light, Indian farmers would be the worst affected and there may be fallout from across the border, as CSR 30 has a Pakistani variety as its parent, though bred in India.

Interestingly, the DNA testing at the Hyderabad-based Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnosis (CDFD), to which importers send basmati samples if they suspect a consignment’s genre, does not identify a CSR 30 sample as traditional. Under the European Commission Regulation, effective from July 1, 2006, EU members can send representative samples of imported basmati rice to a competent body in the country of origin for a DNA-based variety test. But the member-country can also do the tests in a community laboratory. So if the laboratories mandated by the Commerce Ministry’s Export Inspection Council or the CDFD’s testing does not satisfy a EU member, it can test the sample at its end. This was done for a CSR 30 sample recently, and detected were a “couple of grave mistakes” or “scientifically unsound” document.

Small wonder that scientists pitch for a definitional review of evolved basmati rice by involving them, the trading partners and government agencies, duly considering the genes involved, the grain and the cooking quality, than just insisting on a traditional basmati variety being an immediate parent. They even underscore the need to develop “basmati rice” as an India brand by linking scientifically-validated improved varieties to Geographic Indications, rather than pushing a fast vanishing, traditional, low-yielding and disease-susceptible variety.

As the scientists, who have farmers’ interests upper most, make clear, the mere insistence on parentage is not of much relevance. “We work very hard to make the stocks of farmers who are growing basmati earn more profit by making them grow more in a smaller area. It is our view too to ensure that more new materials are evolved in order to keep up the quality and also be more productive,” Dr Prabhu summed up.