Policy flaw

Unapproved GM cotton seeds can spell doom

Corroboration by an expert committee set up by the Prime Minister’s Office, of the reports concerning widespread cultivation of unapproved genetically modified (GM) cotton seeds, calls for a thorough review of not only the GM crops regulatory regime but also the entire gamut of policies governing the GM sector. Supervisory lapses of this kind can prove disastrous for the environment, biodiversity as well as human and animal health though, fortunately, no such ill-effect has been traced by the panel in this case. But that does not mean that the risk is over. The seeds of these unapproved herbicide-tolerant GM cotton, produced last season, are likely to be used by the farmers in the ongoing cotton planting season as well.

Interestingly, the experts’ panel has ruled out any hand of the Mahyco Biotech Company, the original proprietor of the herbicide resistance technology, in the clandestine production and distribution of these seeds. This company, no doubt, had presented these new-generation biotech seeds for official approval but it had formally withdrawn them in 2016 when the government lowered the cap on the prices of Bt-cotton seeds as well as the royalty payable to the technology developer. The committee felt that the herbicide-tolerant genes in the cotton crop actually planted by the farmers were stolen during field trials. Herbicide tolerance allows farmers to control weeds in the cotton fields by spraying weedicides rather than removing them through the relatively costly manual or mechanical means.

That said, there is also another, more significant, dimension of this development. The fact that the farmers did not mind paying substantially higher prices for these seeds reflects their hunger for new and more lucrative technology. They did so knowing full well that they would not be entitled to any compensation for the crop failure due to these seeds and might even be prosecuted for using illegitimate seeds. The fact is, as the committee’s report also states, farmers are “satisfied with the technology which is less labour-intensive and hence cost-beneficial”. If that is so, the government needs to answer why it is denying a useful technology to the farmers by putting a moratorium on the development and approval of new gene-altered crops which have an inherent capability to combat pests, diseases and other yield-depressing factors. Such an ill-advised policy, based largely on disinformation being floated by the anti-GM lobby, is depriving the farmers of an opportunity to boost their income by bagging larger harvests with lower costs. 

This policy is hurting cotton the most because over 90 per cent of the crop area is under Bt-cotton seeds. While the existing Bt-hybrids are gradually losing their effectiveness — as part of the normal process — new ones are nowhere in sight to replace them. More importantly, the major pests of the cotton, notably the American or pink bollworms, which were restrained by the Bt-cotton, are reemerging and even getting immune to the currently used killer genes. If the government does not allow the evolution of new and better gene-engineered strains as alternatives to the existing ones, the cotton revolution may not endure for long.