Over time and with years of focused work, some names and faces get inextricably linked with “causes”. Medha Patkar, for instance, always reminds us of Narmada Dam. Or Aruna Roy whose dedicated efforts over more than four decades to implement grassroots reform in rural India have left an indelible footprint. Then there is Union minister Maneka Gandhi whose love for animals has become legendary, albeit a bit controversial sometimes. Arundhati Roy, of course, has emerged as the goddess of myriad causes, some that involve even oxymorons like ‘Gandhians with guns’. Since 1980s, Sunita Narain has acquired a formidable reputation as a crusader for environment usually backing her activism with science and data. Till some time ago, Madhu Kishwar was celebrated as a women’s rights activist. But she has been banished into intellectual exile by the activism establishment ever since she became a supporter of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. There are many more.
But rounding off this diverse gallery of personalities is Vandana Shiva. She has an impish smile that belies the passion with which she fights for her cause -- to prevent genetically modified crops and food from entering the agricultural and food chain in the country. Shiva is convinced that greedy multinationals have co-opted even more greedy officials and politicians in India to destroy the unique agricultural heritage of India. While she has been at it for decades, her current passion relates to the proposed introduction of GM mustard in the country and the introduction of a variety called Golden Rice in many Third World countries.
Field trials for GM mustard have been conducted extensively in India. And an official committee has described the ‘home-grown’ GM mustard seed as safe for consumption and invited public comments till the first week of October.
But Shiva is not apologetic about her beliefs. For example, she is convinced that the so-called Green Revolution in India is a myth and that crop yields were often better in the era before the Green Revolution. “Mustard is central to India’s food culture. The technical expert committee of the Supreme Court has clearly recommended that there should be no introduction of GMOs in some crops because of risks of contamination,” is her refrain. How credible her claims are is something that science and objective research can determine.
Recently, Monsanto provided ammunition to the activists. The multinational has been selling Bt cotton seeds in India since 2002 and its usage has literally spread across India. It allegedly charges a hefty 30 per cent royalty from dealers and local companies licensed to make and sell the Monsanto version of Bt cotton. Some time ago, under pressure from both Left and Right activists, the government drastically reduced the royalty payable to Monsanto. The company retaliated by announcing that it would not offer its latest generation of pest-resistant seeds to Indian cotton farmers.
Activists like Shiva see this as yet another instance of how foreign multinationals with an agenda of their own can destroy Indian agriculture in the long run. They also cite the ‘unusually high’ farmer suicides to buttress their claims. Those supporting GM crops on the other hand argue that Bt cotton has nothing to do with farmer suicides. They further argue that nobody is forcing anything down the throat of Indian farmers as they have the freedom to buy any seed they want. Their third argument is that companies that invest in innovation must get a fair return, as it happens in the pharma sector.
In fact, so fierce, bitter and controversial has been this debate over GM crops and food that more than 100 Nobel Prize winners have jumped into the fray. Recently, 108 Nobel Prize winners wrote an open letter that was addressed primarily to Greenpeace that has been spearheading a global effort to stop the use of GM crops and food. They say, “Organisations opposed to modern plant breeding, with Greenpeace at their lead, have repeatedly denied these facts and opposed biotechnological innovations in agriculture. They have misrepresented their risks, benefits, and impacts, and supported the criminal destruction of approved field trials and research projects. We urge Greenpeace and its supporters to re-examine the experience of farmers and consumers worldwide with crops and foods improved through biotechnology, recognise the findings of authoritative scientific bodies and regulatory agencies, and abandon their campaign against ‘GMOs’ in general and Golden Rice in particular.”
So far, the Indian experience with GM crops has been confined to cotton. What are the facts and what does the data say, despite all the rhetoric about farmer suicides and their enslavement by multinationals?
In 1947, when India broke free of British imperial rule, annual cotton production was 3.6 million bales. Like the Indian economy, cotton production too displayed a ‘Hindu’ rate of growth, with output growing modestly year after year and often slipping badly after a bad monsoon. Between 1947 and 2002, it took 55 years for cotton production to grow by a little more than three times to 13.6 million bales.
Bt cotton was introduced in India in 2002, despite massive opposition and predictions of doomsday. Yet, output grew by more than three times in just over a decade. The math should be easy for even a school student to do. No doubt, Monsanto has minted tens of millions of dollars in royalty payments. But can anyone deny the benefits to farmers as a result of dramatically improved productivity and production levels?
Despite the visible success of Bt cotton, activists have been implacably opposed to GM crops. Five years ago, many scientists and researchers were hopeful that India will witness the entry of GM food via Bt Brinjal. Field trials were conducted and no conclusive evidence of any harm was recorded except the usual apprehensions about the unknown risks of tampering with nature.
But the then UPA government bowed down to pressure and refused to allow Bt Brinjal seeds to be planted in India. Meanwhile, Bangladesh embraced Bt Brinjal in 2013 despite massive opposition from activists and results from the ground indicate that the experiment has been a success. In any case, the whole debate and controversy surrounding GM crops and food seems a bit facile at the moment because countries like America and China have adopted them for decades and seem none the worse for it.
Perhaps, two things need to be kept in mind in India while taking a decision on GM crops and food. First, multinationals will make money. The policy effort should be to ensure farmers too benefit along with multinationals, as happened with Bt cotton. Second, all new technology comes with a downside. It is not the job of policymakers to close all doors to new technology but to regulate it effectively.
sutanu@businessworld.in
