Farah Aziz: What is the current agricultural biotechnology scenario in India?
Suman Sahai: An untested technology is never safe to be unleashed
freely. If you have a technology, there is also a need of a regulatory
system to control it. This is not so in India. For years we have been
witnessing the proliferation of Bt. Cotton, and the socio-economic
hazards spelled by it. Illegal varieties of seeds like Navbharat seeds
are entering the market without any check. The companies are fuelling
that its a great success. But we are witnessing our farmers committing
suicides. Huge input costs combined with crop failures are spelling
disaster. Several independent studies, NGO reports, and State
governments have proved that Bt. cotton has failed very badly, at least
in rain fed areas, yet there is neither any policy to check it nor any
investigation going on to survey the connection between the crop
failure and farmer suicides.
It can be clearly seen that biotechnology in the field of agriculture
has been applied in the most experimental way in India. All those
experiments that ought to have been conducted in the laboratories are
now let open to be done in the fields itself. Had Bt. Cotton been
tested by the university it would never have entered the open fields.
The technology here has been proposed by the profit motivated
companies. Without imparting any training to the farmers and
undermining all reports of crop failures, the Government kept on
pushing the seeds of private companies. There are as many as 62
varieties of Bt. Cotton that are approved by GEAC (Genetic Engineering
Approval Committee). How can a government behave so irresponsibly that
it kept on divulging an untested technology on its people?
Its an utterly confused scenario where both science and policy have
been thrown to the winds. There are those who are arguing that so what
if the varieties fail in a few years, why not let the farmers enjoy a
few good harvests. The other argument goes that if the farmer finds out
(after growing the crop and indebting himself) that the variety is not
profitable, he will abandon it by himself. Both these arguments can
only be made by city people. If the farmer finds out after the harvest
that he has lost money and can not repay his debt, who bails him out
then? And when the variety fails because the bollworm has become
resistant to Bt., like the mosquitoes did to DDT, what solutions are
there to offer the farmer so that he can continue growing cotton? At
that time these armchair theorists are hard to find.
FA: In what ways can biotech be useful for a country like India where
people are cynical of adopting a new technology especially the farmer
class?
SS: Like any other technology, biotechnology is also wedged with
limitations. It can not do everything. To answer this question, there
is a need to delve into reasoning. Before deciding upon any technique,
we have to identify the problem areas of Indian agriculture, and then
judge whether they can be solved with biotechnology or not? And if yes,
then how, what are the necessities, and to what limits? The most
important is to identify, if the new technology has any back falls too,
what are socio-economic costs? And ultimately that, whether the
technique is going to benefit our marginal farmers or not? If a
technology fails to address issues of our poor farmers, we dont need
it at all. What agricultural problems can biotechnology solve in India?
We need to ask this question to our farmers and not the corporations.
At this juncture of time in India, the agricultural problem doesnt lie
at the stage of production. Even when there are 60 lakh tones of grains
lying idle in the buffer stocks, India is facing hunger deaths as the
people dont have the purchasing power to buy food. The PDS is
returning grain to the farmers, because there is no effective demand.
This is not because we have a scarcity of good varieties, but because
we dont have buyers. The major problem area is that our farmers dont
have a market for there produce. Farmers invest and get a healthy
harvest, but dont get the price they deserve.
Gene Campaign conducted a Jan Sunwai, on March 30th with a
participation of around 5000 farmers. The farmers notified their
problems as high input costs, market unavailability, low market price
for the produce, lack of credit, water scarcity, climatic
uncertainties, low budgetary outlay, IPR, SEZ Act, lack of fertilizers
and like. Where can biotechnology help in this? These problems are
untamable by biotechnology.
All the more, if we have a look at numerous farmers committing
suicides, a more dismal picture reveals. Farmers are killing themselves
because of heavy indebtedness. The input cost of farming Bt. is 5 times
as high as the organic varieties. Moreover, there is no cap on the
royalty that can be demanded by the companies for the patented product.
Without training, and with lack of proper irrigation along with the
inbuilt problems with the variety itself (that have not been tested
yet), the crop is bound to fail. And then there is no increase in the
market price of the produce. Where will the farmers go then? The
problems that Indian farmers face cant be solved with biotechnology,
at least at this point of time. It doesnt guarantee a market!
FA: As a former member of GEAC, what are your views on the decision taken by the committee on commercialization of Bt. cotton?
SS: I was a member the of GEAC, when Bt. Debate had not taken platform.
Its very unfortunate that the companies have managed to have a
substantial influence on the Government. In Indonesia, Monsanto has
been charged against bribing the government officials for giving them a
favourable record and policy for Bt. Its not surprising that Monsanto
might have tried the same trick in India as well. Many years ago, Gene
Campaign with other NGOs had made a submission that the Central
Vigilance Committee may kindly be asked to investigate the matter of
Bt. Cotton.
Its questionable that at the one hand, Bt. is failing repeatedly, and
at the other hand GEAC is approving marketing of newer and newer
varieties. Even at the cost of farmer suicides! Why no review has taken
place? Why no independent agency has been given charge by GEAC to go
into the fields. If GEAC is the authorized agency, the responsibility
lies with the GEAC itself to enquire into the situation in depth. Gene
Campaign as well as other agencies are conducting surveys in this
regard, why GEAC is not conducting any survey? How many more deaths
does the committee want to shock its nerves?
It is their responsibility to enquire the connection between Bt. Cotton
failures and farmer suicides and to find out the extent of illegal
cotton seed trading, the extent of non performance of Bt, the effect on
pesticide use and more. Without any such investigations, GEAC has
approved 62 GE Cotton varieties in just one cotton belt of India. The
number is not so high in any other country. China and United States
produce several times more cotton than us. Even they dont have so many
varieties.
The question is - Why is GEAC refusing to evaluate the performance of
Bt. at all? When such is the case, one naturally gets skeptical about
the influences on GEAC and its connections with the seed industry.
FA: What are your views on introducing GM rice in India?
SS : Rice is the staple food crop and India is the centre of its
origin. This means that the greatest number of rice and related genes
are found in India. Particularly in the Jeypore tract of Orissa, and
the swathe cutting across Jharkhand and Chattisgarh, as well as in the
North eastern tract which constitutes the major gene pool. Centers of
Origin are considered high-risk areas for introducing GE crops because
if the foreign genes contained in the GE variety are to move into the
natural gene pool, the results may be potentially catastrophic. Mexico,
Center of Origin and diversity for corn, has a clear-cut policy and has
imposed a ban on the cultivation and research of GE corn to safeguard
the natural gene pool. Similarly, Peru has banned genetic engineering
in potato and China has followed path for Soya.
Basmati is the premium agricultural product of India and has high
export value. Introduction of genetic modification in rice,
specifically in Basmati, as has been proposed by our Department of Bio
Technology is not only fraught with huge economic losses to India in
particular, but also with possible permanent loss of variety to the
entire world. There is no point why India should allow GE in rice.
FA: How can India increase its production without increasing the acreage to feed its growing masses?
SS: There are several reforms yet to be done in the field of
agriculture, to cater to the agrarian crisis. Budget outlay for
Agriculture in every Five Year plan needs to be increased. There is a
need to reduce the input costs and increase the market price for
agricultural produce. Level of effective demand has to be increased and
cheap credit facilities are to be made available to the farmers. There
should be a proper system to address the issue of water scarcity.
Conservation of Agro Bio-Diversity in Gene and Seed banks is also
important. Diversion of farm land to other commercial activities like
SEZs should be scraped. Investments should be made to restore soil
health. Agriculture should be diversified with introduction of new high
yielding varieties. The agenda on land reform should be completed at
the earliest.
FA: Are there any health hazards also because of the new technique on life stock as well as human beings? Any examples?
SS: Of course, there are health hazards reported from India as well as
other countries. There are reports of cattle deaths after they have
grazed on the Bt. fields. There are reports of skin irritations and
optical infections (including the reddening and watering of eyes) from
the Bt. farmers. There are reports of complete crop failures in cases
of field sharing with Bt. or if the crop is grown on the same field
subsequent to Bt. There have been reports against soybean from Latin
America.
FA: Is there a flaw in the technology itself or the implementation of the technology? What do you think?
SS: There are a number of flaws in the implementation of the
technology. The alien technology has been implemented without any prior
training to our farmers. No field trials were done before marketing the
seed. There was a need to educate the farmers about the 20% refuge
(unsown area) which was a completely unknown phenomenon to ordinary
farming. GEAC didnt conduct any test for technical competence or
otherwise for the new variety. The most skeptical is the fact that
there has been a complete lack of transparency in the implementation
process. Gene campaign dropped many applications under RTI to do the
bio-safety evaluation of the variety, but the department of
biotechnology refused to give any details.
FA: How do you differentiate between the use of GM technology by a developed and a developing country?
SS : It is not about the level of development. It is about the specific
problems of farming that a particular country is facing. If we want A,
and biotechnology is providing Z, its no use for us!
FA : The response to Bt. has been inconsistent. Unlike India, farmers
in China are welcoming the technology, whats your comment on that?
SS: China has kept a price cap on the level of royalty that a company
may demand against the patented seed and China doesnt allow
hybridization of Bt. India doesnt have any such policy, without which
the farmers are left vulnerable to exploitation. Also, India is the
only country which has allowed hybridization of Bt. Cotton which means
that the farmer has to buy from the market at the inflated prices every
time. In India, GEAC has allowed Monsanto to make expensive Bt Cotton
hybrids. So the farmer has to purchase it from the company every time
with as much royalty surcharge as the breeder wants. The difference
lies in the policy that is being adopted.
FA: What effects can Genetic engineering have on natural biodiversity?
SS: We dont exactly know what may happen, because we have not
performed any tests for the results. No studies have been conducted to
detect the phenomenon of gene flow. We have not studied the impact, we
dont know, if using a particular GM seed may induce gene silencing.
There may be a possibility that the original variety gets extinct, due
to gene contamination through pollination. If Bt. is lethal to the
bollworm, or a particular weed, it may be lethal to some of the
beneficial insects, worms and weeds.
FA: Is there actually a possibility like second green revolution? If
yes, then is it achievable, solely depending on the organic farming?
SS : Its a myth that second green revolution has its faith bound with
Genetic Engineering only. Organic farming is a more sustainable mode of
cultivation as compared to GE. The input costs are lesser, and most of
all our farmers are trained for that. We need to put labour in organic
farming, for which we are rewarded; we dont have to put money. Our
natural USP is organic farming, which has a market of 50 billion US$
and could be very well exploited.
If there is a trouble shooting, organic farming has its remedy, and
there are no irreversible damages. The crunch is irrigation,
fertilizers, pesticides, markets, and credit. We need to sort out these
problems to breakthrough a second green revolution. From the point of
view soil health, chemical load, and health hazards organic is the
answer, most of all, it is promising. There are many time tested
organic high yielding varieties. We will have to come out of this
mendacity that organic farming is an obsolete mode. We have to save our
biodiversity for a sustainable mode of farming, and organic farming is
the only answer to that.
Dr. Suman Sahai, who has had a distinguished scientific career in the
field of genetics, was honored with the 2004 Borlaug Award for her
outstanding contribution to agriculture and the environment. She was
appointed Knight of the Golden Ark (Netherlands) in 2001 for
establishing Gene Campaign and generating awareness about issues
related to genetic resources and trade.Dr Sahai is currently chairing
the Planning Commission Task Force on Agro biodiversity and Genetically
Engineered Organisms. She is a member of the National Biodiversity
Board and serves on the Research Advisory Committees of national
scientific institutions, the high-powered National Commission on
International Trade, the Expert Committee on Biotechnology Policy and
the Bioethics Committee of the Indian Council of Medical Research.
Source: Countercurrents.org - written by Farah Aziz & Suman Sahai
Write a comment
Posts: 2
Reply #2 on : Sun June 08, 2008, 15:28:29
Posts: 2
Reply #1 on : Sat December 29, 2007, 04:48:49