It’s a sad year for agri-tech in India. Exactly a decade after the first genetically modified (GM) crop, Bt Cotton, was introduced in the country, the technology itself is being threatened. It’s riskier than conventional breeding no doubt but it doesn’t deserve to be put in the cold storage for 10 years as the Supreme Court is contemplating. The sorry state of affairs of GM technology resembles what’s happening to clean-tech in the US–a few bad moves and the whole programme is tarnished. Last week a Supreme Court-appointed scientific panel recommended that India impose a 10-year moratorium on open field trials of GM crops. It is important to recall that even when Jairam Ramesh imposed a moratorium on the release of Bt Brinjal in February 2010, he did not stop field trials of other crops, either from public institutions or private companies.

Monsanto on its part, while rejecting the overall contents on the report on the grounds that it (the committee) has exceeded its mandate and its implementation would have serious implication on the future of Indian agriculture, said competition already exists in the Bt cotton field and its first-mover advantage comes from the fact that it had better technologies to offer. [...] Association of Biotech-Led Industries-Agriculture Group (ABLE-AG) in a statement expressed dismay over the contents of the report and said it lacked focus and balanced scientific analysis. “There are numerous broad and sweeping recommendations regarding GMOs which are not supported by internationally accepted scientific standards already implemented in India and many other parts of the world.

A declaration signed by over 50 globally renowned scientists held these recommendations detrimental to development of science and harnessing the potential of biotechnology for reviving the country’s agriculture to accelerate poverty reduction and reduce malnourishment. The declaration was sent to PM’s office for intervention. [...] The declaration further said that the Committee’s analysis does not reflect the scientific evidence. In this background, agricultural economists and social scientists worldwide working on the impact of genetically modified crops in particular on Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) cotton in India came together to state that the Committee’s report is not objective. They unanimously asserted that GM crop technologies can play a very important positive role towards food security and sustainable development.

A panel of scientists set up on the orders of the Supreme Court has recommended a ten-year moratorium on field trials of all genetically modified or Bt food crops. The six-member committee of technical experts set up by the Supreme Court came to this conclusion on the basis of the current overall status of food safety evaluation of Bt transgenics, including a review of the data on Bt cotton and Bt brinjal. The panel submitted an unanimous report calling for moratorium till specific sites for conducting field trials have been designated and certified, and sufficient mechanisms for monitoring the trials put in place.

During a recent United Nations summit meeting on genetically modified organisms in Hyderabad, a busload of scientists [...] saw dramatic improvements in [Bt cotton] yields, explained representatives from the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications [...] The farmers were less enthusiastic. True, their fields were no longer infected by the bollworm after switching to Bt cotton – but the farmers were paying for it. “We’re getting higher yields, but we’re not better off,” said T. Venkatesh, one of the cotton farmers, in an interview. “Our costs have gone up much faster than the price of cotton.”

In 2009, I traveled from India to Des Moines to attend the Global Farmers Roundtable, a project of Truth about Trade and Technology, held in conjunction with the World Food Prize. I met farmers from Iowa as well as Australia, Honduras, South Africa, and elsewhere. We learned about each other’s work, discussed common challenges and opportunities, and enjoyed some of the best sweet corn I’ve ever tasted. When I returned to India, I worked with a group of local farmers to open a new sweet corn processing factory. The knowledge I gained in the United States made it possible. I’ll always be grateful to Iowa and the people I met at the Global Farmer Roundtable and World Food Prize for pointing us in the right direction. I hope Indian farmers can imitate Iowa farmers in other ways as well. Most importantly, we must embrace biotechnology–or at least we must be allowed to embrace biotechnology. Right now, large forces and special interests are blocking the way. They must be stopped.

Bt cotton has delivered significant benefits to all members of the agricultural value chain in the country, and has contributed to a cumulative national farm income of about $9.4 billion between 2002 and 2010, turning India from an importer of cotton to an exporter, according to T M Manjunath, a consultant in agricultural biotechnology and integrated pest management. “In India, various studies have revealed that increase in yield due to effective control of bollworms and reduction in insecticide applications following the introduction of Bt cotton were about 50%. Further, a farmer was able to earn a profit that ranged from Rs 7,800 to 30,500 per hectare.

Dr Ilse Kohler-Rollefson from the League for Pastoral People’s and Indogenous Livestock Development, who studied livestock across India, said that there wasn’t any need for GM crops here as it was a healthy system. Citing an example, she said that China, a chief importer of soy beans a few years ago, was importing 70 per cent of it now. “That is because they are breeding GM pigs, which are fed only GM soy beans,” she concluded. “There is diverse livestock in India. It is impressive that the government is trying to promote the farming system. But introducing GM crops can cause a lot of damage,” Dr Ilse warned.

A report released today by the Indian prime minister’s Scientific Advisory Council makes a strong pitch for wider acceptance of genetic engineering and biotechnology. Chaired by chemist C. N. R. Rao of the Jawaharlal Nehru Centre for Advanced Scientific Research in Bangalore, the report from the 32-member SAC panel describes genetic modification as a transformational technology that has benefited agriculture and health. The endorsement differs sharply from a parliamentary panel that took a negative view of genetically modified technology this summer. Today’s SAC report also warns that “[t]he current debate, unfortunately, is demoralizing and isolating our scientists in the sector whose skills have been built with painstaking effort and large investment.”

Though Republic of Croatia has been maintaining a safe distance from the genetically-modified organisms so far, it has signed the Cartagena Protocol and has come up with a national legislative framework to tackle bio-safety issues as it plans to join the European Union in July 2013. ”Fortunately, our people have not accepted anything relating GMO and no multinational company has tried to introduce GM seed but we do not want to be left behind other EU constituents when we join them next year”, Dubravka Stepic, advisor, nature protection directorate of the Croatian Ministry of Environment and Nature Protection told The Hindu on the sidelines of the sixth meeting of the Conference of Parties serving the meeting of the parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Bio-safety.