Bt brinjal, the transgenic version of the unassuming baingan has received much media coverage in the last couple of weeks. More so after last week?s hasty recommendation given by the GEAC when it declared Bt brinjal to be safe for environmental release. Fortunately, the buck doesn?t stop here. It is clear now that Jairam Ramesh, Minister of Environment and Forests (Independent Charge) will now take the final decision after taking into account public opinion, and after having consultations with various stakeholders in eary 2010.
If Bt brinjal does get a go-ahead, it would be the first GM food crop in the country and would open the floodgates for all the other 41 food crops that are currently in various stages of trial across the country. But before jumping onto the GM bandwagon, it is wise to sort out the issues that have risen during the seven- year history of Bt cotton in India. Bt cotton was developed with the intention of bestowing the plant resistance to one pest – the Bollworm. While the technology may have been successful in the lab, the reality on the field has been quite mixed. Increasing pest immunity to Bt cotton Bollgard I variety necessitated the launch of Bt Cotton Bollgard II by Mahyco within a few years. To make matters complicated, more than 35 companies which sold hybrid cotton were effectively coaxed into licensing agreements with Mahyco Monsanto providing farmers no alternative but to choose Bt cotton. The farmers are thus caught up in a vicious GM trap. The claim that Bt cotton has increased yields needs to be questioned seriously. Bt cotton is not designed for yield increase, but for preventing loss from pest attack. It is loss prevention rather than yield increase. Though the national average yield of cotton has been increasing for the past few years, bulk of the increase has been in Gujarat, where there are several reasons for this?increased adoption of hybrids, increased irrigation, and favourable climate resulting in lower pest attacks. High yields of cotton are not unprecedented in India. For example, data from Madhya Pradesh shows that in 1997-98, cotton yields were 740 kg/ ha even before Bt cotton was introduced. Compare this with the national average in 2008 wherein the yield was 501 kg/ha while the highest yield in Gujarat in 2006 was around 660 kg/ha despite the widespread adoption of Bt cotton.
Plant breeders acknowledge that hybrids have a higher yield depending on the agricultural inputs provided and often the success of the hybrid variety is usurped by Bt cotton.
Studies have shown that Bt does not perform well in rain-fed conditions. Vidharba, a rain-fed region is a case in point. High input costs and low yields coupled with uncertain markets drove farmers in various parts of the Vidharba to an unending debt cycle. There is a clear and direct link between high input costs, which comes with Bt cotton and resultant socio-economic impacts. When extended to include food crops, the viability of growing these crops, yield-wise, economy-wise and food-security wise needs to be questioned.
Notwithstanding these facts, nowhere in the history of GM crops have studies by independent scientists proven that GM is safe for consumption. Different studies on lab mice have consistently indicated possible ill-effects of GM organisms (GMOs) on health. Without independent reports on various effects of GM crops, including long-term studies and chronic toxicity studies, GM crops can not be considered to be safe.
What?s the need?
The report from International Assessment for Agricultural Science and Technology for Development, initiated by the World Bank and the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, and conducted by 400 scientists over a period of three years, acknowledges that GM crops will not play a substantial role in addressing the key problems of climate change, biodiversity loss, hunger and poverty. ?The future of farming lies in a biodiversity and labour-intensive agriculture that works with nature and the people, not against them.?This report has been endorsed by our government.
The land under GM crops is less than 2.5% of the total arable land in the world. Only four countries lead the world in GM crops and account for more than 95% of the acreage. All the acreage of GM crops only account for pest resistant crops like Bt cotton or herbicide tolerant crops. In the last 20 years there has been no GM crop which has increased yield because of genetic manipulation.
The number of countries rejecting GM foods continues to swell. For India, loss from export rejections to countries which have banned GM food is a clear reason to not take the GM route at all. In order to secure their markets in Europe, the All India Rice Exporters Association (AIREA) moved the government to ensure that they have GM-free regions in India. The decision taken by the GEAC in early 2007 made it clear that the basmati rice growing states of Punjab, Haryana, Uttarkhand and Western UP will be kept free of GM Rice, to rule out the scope of any contamination of basmati exports. That there is a growing market rejecting GM foods is unmistakable. Almost all retailers and food companies in Europe do not sell GM foods because of strong consumer views. This trend is being observed in India as well. Fifteen major processed food companies stated that they don’t use GM ingredients? a result of consumer preferences against GM food.
Even while the GM technology continues to be mired in controversy, there are initiatives by farmer groups in other parts of the country who have devised ways to work around and solve the problems of agriculture today. Enabavi – a pesticide-free, fertiliser-free village thanks to the efforts of organisations like Centre for Sustainable Agriculture is an example of alternative ecological farming techniques. Perhaps the best example is the large scale adoption of non pesticide management (NPM) techniques in Andhra Pradesh funded under the Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana, a scheme declared by Prime Minister to mitigate agrarian distress and suicides in the affected districts. The plan is to reach 25 lakh acres over a period of five years, with support from the Andhra Pradesh Rural Development department. This is proof that alternative technologies can actually provide better income to the farmer, achieve food security for the country and also ensure safe and nutritious food for the citizens.
?The writer is Sustainable Agriculture campaigner, Greenpeace