Bt cotton goes up in smoke

Farmers should not have to pay for centre’s folly

Genetically modified food is an emotive issue throughout the world. There are four issues involved — the consumers’ right to know that GM substances have been incorporated in food; food safety and adequate testing requirements, including any damage caused to biodiversity; stringent product liability laws, since negative effects can sometimes only be established at a future date; and finally, the ethical objections against transgenic crops. In the Indian context, the second and third objections assume serious proportions because of government laxity, and the recent furore over Bt cotton (cotton engineered to resist the bollworm pest) illustrates this. Regulatory rules have existed since 1989 and a review committee on genetic manipulation in the department of biotechnology is supposed to monitor safety, while the genetic engineering approval committee in the environment ministry is supposed to clear release of genetically engineered organisms and products, including experimental field trials. These two committees exist, although the mandatory biotech coordination committees have not been set up in most states at the district level. Mahyco submitted its application for Bt cotton five years ago and both committees found this seed effective in controlling the bollworm and in boosting productivity.

Why the official clearance has not been issued, despite these findings, is anyone’s guess. Instead, GEAC now discovers, after the crop is ready for harvesting, that the seed has been illegally sold as “Navbharat 151” seed in Gujarat and probably in Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Haryana and Punjab as well. Instead of taking action against the supplier, Navbharat Seed Limited, apparently headed by an ex-employee of Mahyco, the government now proposes to burn a bumper crop. Without firm figures on acreage, how farmers will be compensated is not the central government’s problem. The centre has conveniently passed the buck to state governments and state government budgets will have to absorb compensatory payments, the central exchequer providing no support. There is no dispute that government laxity primarily occurred at the central government level. Other than taking action against the errant supplier, principles of tort law suggest that compensation should be recovered from the centre. More importantly, this should not come out of taxpayers’ money, but should be recovered from government officials who held up the clearance for five years. Unfortunately, as is often the case, costs will actually be borne by farmers.