Brace yourself for a deluge of GM crops

Union agriculture minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan has finally ended his silence on the Indo-US trade deal. On 17 February, Chouhan — who only last year said India needed to be cautious about allowing the entry of

Genetically Modified (GM) crops — declared that Indian farmers had nothing to worry about, their interests were ‘completely protected’ in the ongoing negotiations. He said little on importing soyabean oil from genetically modified soyabeans and DDG (dried distillers’ grains) made from GM maize, both of which find mention in the joint framework to the ‘interim trade agreement’.

Down to Earth, the journal dedicated to environmental concerns, pointed out that a Centre for Science and Environment investigation in 2018 had found ‘GM ingredients in 32 per cent of 65 food products in India, 80 per cent of them imported’.

Sridhar Krishnaswami, a researcher with the Alliance for Sustainable & Holistic Agriculture (ASHA-Kisan Swaraj), fears that “DDGs and soyabean are just a ploy and that our agricultural market is going to be totally opened up”. Why else would the US insist on India removing or relaxing ‘restrictive’ trade practices?

GM foods green-signalled in the deal include soyabean oil and DDGs made from GM maize and used for cattle and poultry feed. By doing so, the Modi government ended India’s long-term moratorium on GM food crops. Under the Environment (Protection) Act 1986, the import of GM crops was disallowed; an exception was made for BT cotton in 2002.

India insisted that approval was required for every GM organism entering the food chain. As late as November 2022, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India had made it mandatory to label foods containing one per cent or more GM content insisting that all import consignments had to certify their non-GM status.

In 2009, there was public backlash against moves to allow BT brinjal cultivation. This time, public reaction is muted because of lack of clarity and absence of details about the deal being negotiated. Even so, several experts say it is obvious that India has bowed to the pressure of major global seed companies (Bayer-Monsanto, Dupont Pioneer, Syngenta, Dow) and to the US, which is the largest exporter of GM crops in the world.

Founder of Gene Campaign Suman Sahai believes the US desperately needed a market for its soyabean and corn, because China, once its top buyer, has dramatically scaled back its purchases. “Trump could not afford to annoy his large political base of soyabean and corn farmers, hence the pressure on us,” says Sahai.

GM crops are plants whose DNA has been altered using genetic engineering techniques to introduce new traits such as resistance to insects and tolerance of herbicides and climate stress. This technology differs from traditional breeding, which mixes genes within a crop’s broader family over several generations.

Experts believe India walked into this deal with its eyes closed, overlooking the ‘precautionary principle’ — followed by several countries — that prioritises the environment and health and safety measures while prohibiting the cultivation and entry of GM crops. More importantly, we are overlooking the fact that India is the centre of origin and genetic diversity for several crops. Regulators have repeatedly cited risks related to gene flow, biodiversity loss and long-term ecological impact.

Shockingly, civil society has remained largely silent on the alarming repercussions of the side entry of GM food products. Could they have swallowed minister of commerce and industry Piyush Goyal’s assurances to the contrary?

India produces around 13.05 million tonnes of soya bean and approximately 42 million tonnes of corn, 20 per cent of which is used to make fuel-grade ethanol. Self-sufficient in its corn output, India imports soya oil for cooking because it lacks the processing infrastructure for edible oil.

Farmers of soya and corn complain that prices of both these crops are depressed with the government not buying enough and traders paying much below the minimum support price (MSP) set by the government. As a result, even their production costs are not being met.

Farmers worry that these losses will mount if US goods enter the Indian market. For one, it will immediately hit their export market. Both soya and corn from India are being sold in the international market primarily because both are non-GM crops. “Once we are inundated with American stuff, this will create doubts of adulteration in the minds of foreign buyers, who might no longer show interest in buying from us,” said a soya farmer from Madhya Pradesh.

Farmer organisations have also expressed fears that the elimination of tariffs on the import of ‘a wide range of US food and agricultural products’ will undermine Indian farmers, horticulturists and oilseed growers, distort feed and livestock markets, and increase dependence on imports. In particular, the import of DDGs and red sorghum will impact the income of millions of farmers growing maize, jowar, soyabean and other crops used for fodder and feed for animals and poultry.

Once the floodgates of GM crops open, import will not be restricted to soya and maize. The US already has GM apples and GM fish in the market — many more are in the pipeline. Once restrictions are removed, will all these GM crops also be dumped in India?

India’s experience with BT cotton should have been a wakeup call. We are Monsanto’s biggest market outside the US — 90 per cent of cotton seeds are sold in our country. BT cotton was introduced with much fanfare in 2002 with farmers promised a huge increase in yields.

They were soon disillusioned. The seeds were expensive and forced small farmers into debt. BT cotton requires regular quantities of water — erratic rainfall caused crop failure. Pests like the pink bollworm developed pesticide resistance, compelling farmers to increase the use of pesticides. Lower yields combined with high-cost technology accelerated farmer distress, triggering a wave of suicides.

Krishnaswami believes the trade deal was deliberately stalled by the US for several months in order to arm-twist India to grant a back-door entry to GM crops. “Apart from the cost issue, there are proprietary concerns because the company holding the patent receives a cut on the sale of every packet of seed sold in the country,” he points out. “The hard truth is that our regulatory sovereignty has been diluted because the US will end up demanding a harmonisation of our regulatory measures with that of the US.”

The late Dr P.M. Bhargava, widely regarded as the architect of modern biology and biotechnology in India and founder-director of the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, consistently warned against both the import and cultivation of GM foods without comprehensive risk assessments of their effects on soil and surrounding fauna.

The most disturbing aspect is that toxicity tests are being conducted by the multinational seed companies themselves, each with a vested interest in ensuring that their genetically modified organisms (GMO) are declared safe.

While studies have proved that genetically modified DNA in oils do not disappear just because they are processed, Piyush Goyal justified the import of soya oil at the presser by saying that “when a processed item is imported, the GM effects are no longer there”.

National convenor of ASHA-Kisan Swaraj Kirankumar Vissa says, “The minister’s statement is both unscientific and opportunistic. Each product needs its own biosafety assessment. That is why we have a statutory regulatory framework. We are flouting domestic laws made by our Parliament to appease the Trump administration, throwing our citizens’ interests away in the bargain. This ‘interim agreement framework’ is the first round of opening up Indian agriculture, to be followed by many more crops and animal products in the future, even while claiming protection.”