Editorial: Why Regulate GM Crops?
WHY REGULATE GM CROPS?
A Real Challenge for Policymakers
GMOs are back in the news as India approved GM Mustard for seed production and field testing in October last. The decision has long-term implications for Indian farmers and consumers. Earlier, in 2002, GM Cotton was given the green light. In 2009, Bt Brinjal got a conditional clearance which was later withdrawn due to public outcry and food safety concerns.
The policy has given rise to serious concerns and apprehensions that must be debated and discussed in right earnest because the changes involved are irreversible. And if emerging technology is as life-changing as GMOs, it creates fears and anxieties about the future of our coming generations. It is therefore a matter of human ethics rather than of just the implications of a new technology.
Genetic modifications are carried out in organisms by splicing genes through cutting and adding chunks of DNA – the minutest encryption of life – in order to alter their fundamental structures. This is done in the hope that the process will yield plants or organisms carrying desired traits. These changes could be aimed at creating pest-resistant and high-yielding crops, though not without consequences.
Three sets of fundamental issues stare us in the face: First and foremost are regarding human health triggered by the safety of the GM foods consumed by people and animals. Next are the issues of damage to the environment and biodiversity caused by the manipulations of living organisms. Some studies have shown that the pest-resistant traits of GMOs can be harmful to honey bees and other friendly insects. And lastly, the issues regarding rural livelihoods which get affected by new cropping patterns, of both food and non-food crops.
GM tech also reconfigures power, politics, and economic equations by shifting the control over seeds from farmers to the private sector. Then there are issues of resource piracy and theft of traditional knowledge. A good example is the patenting of a lab-grown variety of Indian basmati rice by a US company in 1997. In the past, unsuccessful attempts have been made to patent Indian medicinal herbs like turmeric or neem. The conflict is between farmers who treat their seeds as common heritage and those who view them as a source of mega profits, argues Vandana Shiva in ”Protect or Plunder: Understanding Intellectual Property Rights”(2001).
The debate over GMOs has been polarising. The supporters see it as a revolutionary technology that will end human deprivation while the opponents view it as an onslaught on the laws of nature. As we discuss this, millions of acres of GM crops are being cultivated in over 25 countries which is set to increase every year. Obviously, taking hard, one-sided positions will not be useful for any country.
It is vital, therefore, that we must take our time and not buckle under pressure. We must remember that technology that makes us comfortable and prosperous can be harmful. Public participation does not always help in the midst of misconceptions, hype, and lack of awareness. And that is why technology and democracy have a fractious relationship.
The biggest task for the policymakers now is to set up credible, conversant, and pro-people regulation. We also need independent scientific studies to evaluate the full impact of GM technology on our health, environment, and biodiversity. It is also important to ensure pre-legislative transparency before enacting any life-changing laws. We hope this issue of your journal will be helpful in making sense of the issues involved. As always, your comments or suggestions are welcome at commoncauseindia@gmail.com.
Vipul Mudgal
Editor
NEXT »
