Why GM mustard is cost effective for farmers and neither a threat for biodiversity nor harmful for consumers

The ongoing debate on Genetically Modified Mustard variety is raising many questions on policy formulation relating to the use of technology in agriculture. When compared to the industry and services sectors, the regulatory framework for agricultural technology is 20 years backwards.

During the past two decades, the world changed rapidly, with computers becoming more efficient and nimble, laptops becoming smaller and more user-friendly with enhanced capabilities, and mobiles becoming smarter with enhanced speed. The impacts of these rapid technological advances are visible across the world. The videos taken from mobile phones are becoming viral within seconds the world over, and doctors becoming more efficient in diagnosing and solving health problems with the help of robots and genetically modified medicines.

In this process, everybody, technology producers and consumers are gaining and our lifestyles are changed positively. We are living longer, able to travel across the world, and able to lead healthy and productive life. However, there are some downsides like displacement of labour, especially in middle-level jobs like typists, clerks, etc. Some industries are closed down like old telephone and cycle-rickshaw manufacturers. Some occupations are diminishing due to reduced demand like village carpenters, plumbers and office assistants.

All these technologies are developed due to free and open innovation platforms. Development and adoption of technologies needs to be encouraged and regulated depending on their implications on wider society. If computers were banned in their early stages because of fears of its impact on clerical jobs, we would not have been able to advance and live a modern life.

***

Also Read

***

With this perspective, we have to see GM mustard approval and adoption process. Opponents of GM mustard complain about carcinogenic effects of GM crops, biodiversity impacts and displacement of women. There was no concrete evidence of carcinogenic effects of GM crops and it is cultivated and consumed in more advanced countries like the USA after passing through food safety regulations.

Relating to the biodiversity argument, to some extent with the adoption of GM mustard, on-farm genetic diversity of mustard crop may reduce, as it may replace some traditional mustard varieties as it happened in case of Bt cotton. But, there are many other scientific methods of conservation of biodiversity, which the government can use. Indian small farmers are not in a position to bear the cost of conserving biodiversity as they are already poor and profits are low.

Opponents are also arguing that because GM mustard is herbicide resistant, it may lead to over use of herbicides to control weeds leading to a reduction in biodiversity of weeds by killing them. This is also not a valid argument in the farmers’ point of view, as farmers are looking for cost effective weeding whatever may be the method, whether it is through manual labour or herbicides.

Many are also complaining about the replacement of women’s labour use by the application of herbicides to remove weeds from their mustard fields. Again from the farmers’ point of view, it is not a valid argument as use of herbicides is more cost-effective in the rising wage rates situation. Some others complain about monopolization of the GM mustard seed market by multinationals. This argument is also not valid, as the GM mustard technology is entirely developed by the public-funded Delhi University. 

In any case, in India seed falls under plant varieties Act, under which prices will be controlled by the government to be affordable to the farmers. We have past experience of GM cotton, even though the technology is private, the seed price is controlled by the government, now more than 95 per cent of cotton farmers are cultivating GM cotton.

The claims of harmful effects of GM crops are not validated in any crop and anywhere. For over 20 years, GM canola (a variant of mustard) and GM soybean have been cultivated globally mainly in America (where GM technologies are passed through technically more stringent regulator Food and Drug Organisation) and exported to India. Now it is time to take a call on whether India should continue to import GM based edible oils by spending about 1 lakh crore every year from other countries or allow Indian farmers to cultivate.

Given the approval of GEAC for environmental release of DHM-11, there is a need for creating an enabling environment for farmers to move forward for wider adoption of improved technology for better yields and incomes.

The author is Principal Scientist (Agricultural Economics), ICAR-Centre Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture, Hyderabad. Views expressed are personal.

Read all the Latest News , Trending News , Cricket News , Bollywood News , India News and Entertainment News here. Follow us on Facebook , Twitter and Instagram .