GM crops: Giving truth a chance

Nothing sells like fear. And nothing illustrates this better than what China is encountering in trying to promote genetically modified (GM) crops. The country is trying to promote GM food to expand its food supplies.

Actually, some of the hurdles China is facing in this issue are quite amusing. For instance, a Chinese woman entrepreneur, reports say, was wary of using GM corn since she had come across an article, shared by her friend, which said that GM food caused infertility.

Instances of those opposed to GM crops coming up with such fear-mongering are many.

In the last few years, the anti-GM lobby has gone to town with the study of French scientist Gilles-Eric Séralini on the long-term effects of GM corn on rats. The paper, published in the Food and Chemical Toxicology journal, was withdrawn last year.

The ground for the withdrawal was that the rats on which the experiments were carried out are prone to developing cancer with age. The study was republished in a new journal earlier this year; but it is inconclusive in its finding. It calls for long-term feeding trials to thoroughly evaluate the safety of GM foods.

Monsanto Chief Technology Officer Robb Fraley made a valid point at the US Farm Progressive Show a few weeks ago, saying “ever since modified corn was introduced in 1990s, not a single issue with food safety or technology has been reported because of the GM crop”.

Probably, the findings of Alison L Van Eenennaam, geneticist in the Department of Animal Science, University of California-Davis, and AE Young, her understudy, on the impact of GM food on livestock were at the back of his mind.

The study, “Prevalence and impacts of genetically engineered feedstuffs on livestock populations” published in the Journal of Animal Science , says no adverse effect had been found on any animal despite being fed with GM food.

A feature of the study is that it has compiled data on livestock productivity and health from publicly available sources from 1983, before the introduction of GM crops in 1996, and subsequently through 2011, a period with high levels of GM crops in the feed.

It gains credence since the US produces nine million livestock animals every year, nearly 95 per cent of which are fed GM food.

This then brings us to the Indian scenario, where the Narendra Modi government is yet to take a call on permitting field trials of GM crops.

A case against GM crops is pending in the Supreme Court but it is time such controversial issues are settled on a scientific basis.

In India, Bt cotton is being cultivated for nearly 12 years now. In fact, the Government was forced to allow Bt cotton after farmers in Gujarat began to cultivate uncertified and smuggled Bt cottonseeds. Till now, there has been no adverse report against Bt cotton.

Also, farmers, in their eagerness to get better returns, don’t grow the mandatory non-GMO cotton as a refuge crop on their farm along with the Bt variety.

They throw away the non-GMO seeds, which increases the risk of pests immune to GM technology developing.

India imports about 10 lakh tonnes of degummed or crude soyabean oil every year, mainly from the Americas. GM soyabean makes up nearly 90 per cent of the US crop, while in Argentina it makes up 98 per cent. In Brazil, it is about 80 per cent.

The million dollar question here is: When we oppose even a field trial of Bt brinjal, is anyone sure that the soyabean oil we are using in the food is not from a GM crop?

It also brings us to the controversy over Bt brinjal, which is now being cultivated in neighbouring Bangladesh. The fear now among the pro- and anti-GM groups is that the genetically modified crop can be smuggled across the border and it is only a matter of time before it is cultivated illegally here.

There are a few, who, when confronted with these facts, try to turn the tables by pointing out that biotech firms are trying to monopolise seed production.

This is a totally different issue which needs a different policy approach. A year ago, BusinessLine had pointed out in these columns that opposition to GM crops is only helping a couple of biotech firms such as Monsanto to enjoy a monopoly since other companies are denied a chance to test their products.

GM or non-GM, the world is in need of improved food supply. According to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation, food production will have to increase nearly 70 per cent from the current levels to feed a global population of 9.1 billion by 2050.

It means cereal production will have to increase by a billion tonnes and developing countries will have to contribute 72 per cent of this.

The US, which produced some seven tonnes of corn per hectare in 2009, will have to nearly double it by 2030. Since the advent of GM crops, corn production has increased by 28 per cent between 1997 and 2009 in the US.

Can organic or traditional varieties meet the demand? Will they be able to resist drought or insect or pest attacks?

There is also the additional issue of nutrition among women and children in developing countries. Scientists are of the view that nutrition can best be delivered in developing countries through genetically-modified crops.

The MS Swaminathan Research Foundation has got ready the golden rice which can provide Vitamin A, necessary to prevent blindness among children in least developed nations. But in view of the ban on field trials, it is still locked in the laboratory.

All this point to one conclusion: There is an urgent need to look at GM crops scientifically and truth has to be given a chance. And shouldn’t farmers and consumers be left to make their own choices rather than others trying to decide for them?