The Hindu Business Line : Modified controversy

Genetically modified inputs can certainly boost yields. But, given the technology’s potential risks, a cautious approach to its adoption is desirable.

Life science companies keen to accelerate the infusion of technology into the country’s agriculture have been complaining about the slow process for approval of genetically-modified (GM) seeds. They point out that in the last 12 years, after the first GM crop (Bt Cotton) was commercialised in the US in 1996, many new products have been introduced into the market with beneficial results in terms of higher output and yield, as also lower costs. This contrasts with Indi a where, six years after the entry of Bt Cotton in 2002, there is little to show in terms of introduction of newer products. Also, seed companies complain of undue government interference in pricing. There may be some justification in this complaint; but the country’s cautious approach to adoption of new technology in seeds — primarily because of the largely agrarian nature of the economy and livelihood of millions of farmers — is equally justified.

The policymakers need not feel pressured and must insulate themselves from high-powered corporate public relations. The success in cotton production recorded in recent years after introduction of Bt Cotton is there for all to see. Can this success be replicated in such other crops as corn and soyabean? We need to wait and watch. Now, suddenly, questions are being raised about the appropriateness of the very approval process that seed companies assert has been slow. Dr P. M. Bhargava, the special invitee to the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee appointed by the Supreme Court, has set the cat among the pigeons. Recent media reports quoting Dr Bhargava have highlighted weaknesses in the decision-making process of the country’s highest body that regulates and promotes the adoption of agricultural biotechnology products.

There is no doubt that it is absolutely necessary for the GEAC as a whole to closely examine his various observations on merits and lay down stricter guidelines for trials, experiments and tests prior to commercialisation. Because the stakeholders are the country’s over one billion consumers, there should be no lingering doubt about the truly scientific nature of the approval process. It is equally necessary to demonstrate that the process is without bias, transparent and is based strictly on merit. The GEAC is duty-bound to place before the country all the facts, especially on issues where Dr Bhargava has pointed out impropriety. Having said that, it may be equally important to ascertain the erudite views of another Supreme Court appointee, Dr M. S. Swaminathan. Does he hold a view different from Dr Bhargava’s? Because it is cutting-edge technology, the views of scientists will have to prevail; and because of the potential risks, a cautious approach on the part of policymakers to the issue of technology adoption is desirable.

Related Stories:
‘Two genetics related panels violate norms, lack quorum’
‘India may turn big producer of GM rice, vegetables by 2010’
‘India has fifth largest area under GM crops’

More Stories on : Editorial | Bio-tech & Genetics | Cotton

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
Modified controversy

Controlling inflation, the supply management way

Bringing political donations to book

Exemptions versus deductions

Transfer pricing: Of peers and profits!

Tax managers focus more on compliance than planning

Tea tourism

Undemocratic culture