A Nobel endorsement

But govt must ensure safeguards for GM product trials

The promoters of genetically modified organisms (GMO), who have been fighting a tough battle against the vociferous anti-biotechnology lobby, have found support from a highly revered section of intellectuals. As many as 109 Nobel laureates have backed the gene-tweaking technology to improve crops and other products. They have recommended that criticism of GM foods on emotional, dogmatic and unfounded grounds must come to an end and governments should reject objections against biotechnological innovations. In a hard-hitting disparagement of GM detractors, they have also decried the campaign against Vitamin A-enhanced Golden Rice, which has the potential to reduce deaths due to Vitamin A deficiency. A noteworthy point made by them is that there has seldom been any confirmed case of any negative impact of GM products on environment or human and animal health.

Significantly, these contentions have promptly been endorsed by noted environmentalist Mark Lynas - who had initially spearheaded a relentless anti-GM movement in Europe but later, realising his mistake, had turned a staunch support of this technology. It is worth recalling that a similar earlier joint action by about 50 top Indian scientists, including the recipients of coveted national and international awards, to uphold the virtues of GM technology had failed to deliver the desired results. In a letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi in February 2015, these scientists had cogently argued that the country had lost considerable time in harnessing this useful technology and any further delay would be detrimental to agriculture and other fields.

The underlying message from these domestic and global luminaries for all countries is to go ahead with GM crops regardless of misinformed and motivated tirade against them. This counsel is all the more relevant for India which, despite having tasted success in gene-altered Bt-cotton, is dragging its feet to allow similar other crops, some of which like Bt-brinjal and Bt-mustard have already passed the safety tests. One of the obvious reasons for this dilly-dallying is the flawed policy to let politicians take the final call on the use of GM crops rather than leaving it to those who can form a purely science-based opinion.

Of course, safeguards will be needed before trials take place for growing GM crops. At the same time, however, it would be advisable to heed the Nobel laureates' advice on ignoring the criticism of GM technology. However, doing this in India may not be easy. The ruling party, the Bharatiya Janata Party, and some of its sister outfits in the Sangh Parivar, such as the Swadeshi Jagaran Manch, are opposing it. The first and foremost task for the government would, therefore, be to convince these organisations that this technology is vital for Indian agriculture to meet its present and future challenges. Rigorous pre-approval safety testing is, no doubt, essential.